[super_ar]

Totally fair point. For stable, known workloads, you can get really far with something lightweight on a single machine. The challenge comes when you need fault tolerance, scaling, and delivery guarantees without constantly jumping in to fix things. Often heard from data teams talking about data peaks that they cannot predict as easily. But yes, a lot of existing tools make you pay a high-efficiency cost for that. At GlassFlow we are trying to hit that sweet spot...efficient but still resilient.

[CaveTech]

I think your benchmark may miss the mark a bit if this is your angle.

20m records and 9k/sec isn’t very impressive. I would imagine most prospective customers have larger workloads, as you could throw this behind Postgres and call it a day. FWIW I was interested but your metrics made me second guess and wonder what was wrong.

[super_ar]

Fair point. Thanks for calling it out! To clarify, we’re focused on a specific use case: Kafka to ClickHouse pipelines with exactly-once guarantees. Kafka can’t provide exactly-once out of the box when writing to external systems like ClickHouse. You could use something like Flink, but there’s no native Flink-to-ClickHouse connector and Flink requires certain ops effort from the teams. Our goal was to show users a very easy-to-reproduce load test to validate the results. As a next step, we’re actively working on a Kubernetes-ready version that will scale horizontally and plan to share those higher-throughput results with the HN community soon.