DEVOURED
I Tested Polars 2.1 Against DuckDB 2.0 (10 minute video)
Polars 2.1 outperforms DuckDB 2.0 by nearly 2x on a 23 GB dataset when restricted to 2 GB of RAM.
What: In benchmark testing on a dataset significantly larger than available memory, Polars 2.1 completed processing in 438 seconds compared to 837 seconds for DuckDB 2.0. Polars 2.0 failed to complete the task due to out-of-memory errors.
Why it matters: This underscores the trade-offs between DuckDB's feature-rich, client-server approach and Polars' specialized focus on efficient streaming for out-of-core processing.
Original article
DuckDB 2.0 adds client-server and AI features, while Polars improves streaming and processing of larger-than-memory datasets. On a 23 GB dataset with 2 GB RAM, Polars 2.0 ran out of memory, but 2.1 finished in 438 seconds, nearly twice as fast as DuckDB's 837 seconds.
Explore all 69 articles in today's digest
Fresh dev news, AI-digested daily. Never miss a trend at devoured.fyi