Performance Benchmarks

InventDB v0.18 & PostgreSQL 18.2 | March 2026

PostgreSQL is the gold standard of relational databases — battle-tested over 40 years, trusted by millions of deployments worldwide, and renowned for its reliability and query performance. We use PostgreSQL as our benchmark because that is the standard we hold ourselves to. Our goal is to learn from the best and make InventDB better with every release.

Below are side-by-side query performance measurements for InventDB and PostgreSQL across 143 queries in 18 categories. All times are warm-run totals in milliseconds (lower is faster). Tests were conducted on the same hardware under identical conditions.

Test Environment

Platform

Windows Server 2025

CPU

4 vCPU

Memory

16 GB RAM

Storage

EBS General Purpose SSD (gp3, up to 3,000 IOPS)

InventDB Version

v0.18

PostgreSQL Version

18.2

Database Configuration

Parameter	InventDB	PostgreSQL
Storage Model	Segmented B-Link tree (100K records/segment)	Standard heap + B-tree indexes
Encryption	AES-256-GCM at rest	None
Page Cache	Disabled (page_cache = 0)	shared_buffers ~4 GB
Document Cache	Disabled	N/A
Aggregate Cache	Disabled	N/A
Data Types	4 types: Customer, CustomerContact, CustomerDevice, CustomerInteraction

InventDB was tested with all application-level caches disabled and AES-256 encryption active on every read. PostgreSQL uses its default shared_buffers page cache (~4 GB) with no encryption.

10 Million Records (Equal Scale)

Both databases loaded with 2,500,000 records per type (10M total). Identical data, identical queries.

Metric	InventDB	PostgreSQL
Total Records	10,000,000	10,000,000
Records per Type	2,500,000	2,500,000
Segments per Type	25	Single table
Insert Throughput	18,941 rec/s	15,197 rec/s

Category Totals

Single-Threaded (ST)

143 queries, cold + warm run each. Times = category warm totals (ms).

Category	InventDB	PostgreSQL
Basic SELECT (7)	44	1,702
Exact Match (7)	71	7
Range (11)	112	7
LIKE (8)	435	54
Compound WHERE (12)	681	14
ORDER BY (12)	168	8,324
GROUP BY (14)	760	7,334
GROUP BY + WHERE (4)	16	1,902
JOIN 2-table (12)	3,955	16,354
JOIN 3-table (11)	13,141	63,948
JOIN 4-table (5)	2,169	38,981
Secondary Table (9)	76	1,399
Pagination (6)	180	422
NULL Handling (2)	90	250
HAVING (4)	292	3,742
Edge Case (8)	8	725
Complex (5)	3,616	13,238
DISTINCT (6)	380	5,885
Total Warm	26,194	164,288
Total Cold	85,704	181,053
Wall Clock	113.0s	380.2s

Multi-Threaded (4 Threads)

143 queries × 4 threads. Times = per-thread avg warm totals (ms).

Category	InventDB	PostgreSQL
Basic SELECT (7)	32	5,430
Exact Match (7)	214	6
Range (11)	457	6
LIKE (8)	329	89
Compound WHERE (12)	1,093	11
ORDER BY (12)	337	23,339
GROUP BY (14)	1,623	26,108
GROUP BY + WHERE (4)	20	5,533
JOIN 2-table (12)	7,240	48,805
JOIN 3-table (11)	18,900	220,444
JOIN 4-table (5)	5,655	158,815
Secondary Table (9)	118	3,161
Pagination (6)	255	1,194
NULL Handling (2)	26	740
HAVING (4)	572	10,093
Edge Case (8)	143	2,401
Complex (5)	7,969	30,463
DISTINCT (6)	1,196	13,995
Per-Thread Warm	46,179	550,633
Per-Thread Cold	72,359	617,293
Wall Clock	119.6s	1,281.7s

Per-Query Statistics

Distribution of individual query execution times across all 143 queries. All times in milliseconds.

Single-Threaded (143 queries)

Metric	Cold (ms)		Warm (ms)
	InventDB	PG	InventDB	PG
Average	355	1,257	183	1,149
Median (p50)	75	5	12	4
p90	729	2,390	434	3,474
p95	2,132	7,515	1,562	7,503
p99	3,209	19,734	2,327	20,011
Max	5,702	23,764	2,575	22,837

Multi-Threaded (4 threads)

Metric	Cold (ms)		Warm (ms)
	InventDB	PG	InventDB	PG
Average	779	3,950	323	3,850
Median (p50)	151	11	29	5
p90	2,960	10,486	905	8,727
p95	4,409	14,486	2,307	17,722
p99	7,492	76,671	3,536	71,579
Max	11,076	93,705	4,592	95,819

Both databases: 143 queries × 4 threads, all concurrent (identical contention model). PG GROUP BY excludes query 7.14.

Reading percentiles: The median (p50) shows the typical query time. p90 means 90% of queries complete within this time. p99 represents the tail latency — the slowest 1% of queries. A lower p99 indicates more consistent performance across all query types.

Query Time Distribution (Single-Threaded Warm)

How many queries fall into each latency bucket, and which categories they belong to. Based on 136 comparable warm-run queries at equal 10M scale.

InventDB v0.18

Latency Bucket	Queries	% of Total	Bucket Sum	Categories
0 – 10 ms	63	44%	230 ms	GROUP BY (10), Edge Case (8), Range (7), Basic SELECT (6), Secondary Table (6), Exact Match (5), GROUP BY+WHERE (4), DISTINCT (4), LIKE (3), JOIN 2-table (3), HAVING (2), Compound WHERE (2), Pagination (2), NULL Handling (1)
11 – 50 ms	36	25%	665 ms	ORDER BY (12), Compound WHERE (5), Range (4), Pagination (3), Secondary Table (3), Exact Match (2), Basic SELECT (1), LIKE (1), GROUP BY (1), JOIN 2-table (1), JOIN 3-table (1), HAVING (1), DISTINCT (1)
51 – 100 ms	7	5%	602 ms	LIKE (3), Compound WHERE (2), Pagination (1), NULL Handling (1)
101 – 500 ms	27	19%	7,162 ms	JOIN 2-table (6), JOIN 4-table (5), JOIN 3-table (4), Compound WHERE (3), GROUP BY (3), Complex (3), LIKE (1), HAVING (1), DISTINCT (1)
501 – 1,000 ms	1	1%	678 ms	Complex (1)
1,000+ ms	9	6%	16,857 ms	JOIN 3-table (6), JOIN 2-table (2), Complex (1)

69% of queries complete in under 50ms. The 9 queries above 1 second (6%) account for 64% of total warm time and are exclusively multi-table JOIN and Complex queries, which involve cross-type hash joins.

PostgreSQL 18.2

Latency Bucket	Queries	% of Total	Bucket Sum	Categories
0 – 10 ms	78	55%	88 ms	Compound WHERE (12), Range (11), ORDER BY (10), LIKE (7), Exact Match (7), Edge Case (6), JOIN 2-table (5), Secondary Table (6), Pagination (5), Basic SELECT (3), JOIN 3-table (3), Complex (1), JOIN 4-table (1), NULL Handling (1)
11 – 50 ms	1	1%	32 ms	LIKE (1)
51 – 100 ms	2	1%	135 ms	JOIN 3-table (1), JOIN 2-table (1)
101 – 500 ms	24	17%	9,182 ms	GROUP BY (10), DISTINCT (4), Basic SELECT (4), Secondary Table (2), HAVING (1), Pagination (1), NULL Handling (1), Edge Case (1)
501 – 1,000 ms	16	11%	9,091 ms	GROUP BY (4), HAVING (3), DISTINCT (2), ORDER BY (2), JOIN 2-table (2), Secondary Table (1), Complex (1), Edge Case (1)
1,000+ ms	22	15%	145,760 ms	JOIN 3-table (7), JOIN 2-table (4), JOIN 4-table (4), GROUP BY+WHERE (4), Complex (3)

55% of queries complete in under 10ms thanks to PostgreSQL's shared_buffers page cache providing instant indexed lookups. However, 22 queries (15%) exceed 1 second, accounting for 89% of total warm time — these are primarily multi-table JOINs, COUNT(DISTINCT), and full-table aggregations where PostgreSQL must scan large tables.

Key Observations (10M)

Sub-10ms tier: InventDB places 63 queries (44%) under 10ms vs PostgreSQL's 78 (55%). PostgreSQL's page cache gives it sub-millisecond indexed lookups for point queries and range scans with LIMIT.
Sub-50ms tier: InventDB places 99 queries (69%) under 50ms vs PostgreSQL's 79 (55%). InventDB's per-property B-trees and count trees keep ORDER BY, GROUP BY, and DISTINCT queries fast.
Tail latency (1s+): InventDB has 9 queries (6%) over 1 second totaling 17s. PostgreSQL has 22 queries (15%) over 1 second totaling 146s. InventDB's hash-based JOIN aggregation is faster for GROUP BY and COUNT(DISTINCT) across tables.

Query Time Distribution (Multi-Threaded, 4 Threads, Warm)

How many queries fall into each latency bucket under 4-thread contention. Both databases at equal 10M scale (2.5M/type). Times are per-thread average warm values across 143 queries.

InventDB v0.18

Latency Bucket	Queries	% of Total	Bucket Sum	Categories
0 – 10 ms	37	26%	108 ms	GROUP BY (9), Basic SELECT (6), Edge Case (6), GROUP BY+WHERE (4), JOIN 2-table (3), Secondary Table (3), Pagination (2), HAVING (2), Compound WHERE (1), NULL Handling (1)
11 – 50 ms	57	40%	1,635 ms	ORDER BY (12), Exact Match (7), Range (7), Compound WHERE (6), Secondary Table (6), LIKE (5), Distinct (4), GROUP BY (2), Pagination (2), Basic SELECT (1), JOIN 2-table (1), JOIN 3-table (1), NULL Handling (1), HAVING (1), Edge Case (1)
51 – 100 ms	11	8%	713 ms	Range (4), LIKE (3), Compound WHERE (2), Pagination (1), Edge Case (1)
101 – 500 ms	13	9%	3,679 ms	JOIN 2-table (5), Compound WHERE (3), GROUP BY (1), JOIN 3-table (1), Pagination (1), Complex (1), Distinct (1)
501 – 1,000 ms	11	8%	7,479 ms	JOIN 3-table (3), GROUP BY (2), JOIN 4-table (2), JOIN 2-table (1), HAVING (1), Complex (1), Distinct (1)
1,000+ ms	14	10%	32,565 ms	JOIN 3-table (6), JOIN 4-table (3), Complex (3), JOIN 2-table (2)

66% of queries complete in under 50ms even under 4-thread contention. Only 14 queries (10%) exceed 1 second, totaling just 33s — all multi-table JOINs and Complex queries.

PostgreSQL 18.2

Latency Bucket	Queries	% of Total	Bucket Sum	Categories
0 – 10 ms	75	52%	77 ms	Compound WHERE (12), Range (11), ORDER BY (10), Exact Match (7), LIKE (7), Secondary Table (6), Edge Case (6), Pagination (5), JOIN 2-table (4), Basic SELECT (2), JOIN 3-table (2), JOIN 4-table (1), NULL Handling (1), Complex (1)
11 – 50 ms	3	2%	62 ms	LIKE (1), JOIN 3-table (1), Complex (1)
51 – 100 ms	2	1%	118 ms	JOIN 2-table (1), Edge Case (1)
101 – 500 ms	3	2%	722 ms	ORDER BY (1), JOIN 4-table (1), Secondary Table (1)
501 – 1,000 ms	3	2%	2,312 ms	Edge Case (1), Pagination (1), NULL Handling (1)
1,000+ ms	57	40%	547,342 ms	GROUP BY (14), JOIN 3-table (8), JOIN 2-table (7), DISTINCT (6), Basic SELECT (5), GROUP BY+WHERE (4), HAVING (4), JOIN 4-table (3), Complex (3), ORDER BY (1), Secondary Table (2)

52% of queries under 10ms via PostgreSQL’s page cache for indexed lookups. But 57 queries (40%) exceed 1 second under contention, totaling 547s (vs InventDB’s 33s) — a 17× gap. All GROUP BY, DISTINCT, and most aggregation queries degrade heavily under MT contention.

Key Observations (10M MT)

Sub-50ms tier: InventDB places 94 queries (66%) under 50ms vs PostgreSQL’s 78 (55%). Under contention, InventDB’s lockless per-property B-trees maintain low latency across ORDER BY, GROUP BY, and Range queries.
Sub-1s tier: InventDB keeps 129 queries (90%) under 1 second vs PostgreSQL’s 86 (60%). PostgreSQL’s full-table scans for GROUP BY and aggregation queries degrade sharply under contention.
Tail latency (1s+): InventDB has 14 queries (10%) over 1 second totaling 33s. PostgreSQL has 57 queries (40%) over 1 second totaling 547s — 17× more total tail time.

Data Ingestion Performance

Detailed breakdown of the time to load 10,000,000 records (2.5M per type × 4 types) into each database.

InventDB

Phase	Time
Batch Insert (all 10M records)	527.95s
Total	527.95s
Effective Throughput	18,941 rec/s

All indexes built inline during insert. Data encrypted (AES-256) on write. No post-insert index build or analysis needed.

PostgreSQL

Phase	Time
COPY (bulk load, unlogged tables)	47.7s
Index Creation (B-tree on all columns)	208.4s
Foreign Key Constraints	8.8s
SET LOGGED (enable WAL)	354.4s
ANALYZE (statistics update)	12.9s
Total	658.1s
Effective Throughput	15,197 rec/s

Raw COPY throughput: 209,471 rec/s. Total includes all post-load operations required for production readiness (indexes, constraints, WAL, statistics).

PostgreSQL's raw COPY command is extremely fast (209K rec/s) but a production-ready load includes index creation, foreign key validation, enabling WAL logging, and gathering statistics. InventDB builds all indexes inline during the insert phase, with encryption active throughout.

100 Million Records (Equal Scale)

Both databases loaded with 25,000,000 records per type (100M total). Identical data, identical queries. Multi-threaded benchmark: 4 threads, each running all 143 queries independently (worst-case contention).

Metric	InventDB	PostgreSQL
Total Records	100,000,000	100,000,000
Records per Type	25,000,000	25,000,000
Segments per Type	250	Single table

Both databases tested at identical scale (25M records per type = 100M total). InventDB runs with all caches disabled and AES-256 encryption at rest. PostgreSQL uses its default ~4 GB shared_buffers page cache with no encryption. Each of 4 threads runs all 143 queries independently — maximum concurrent contention.

Category Totals

Single-Threaded (ST)

Both at 25M/type (100M). 143 queries, cold + warm run each. Times = category warm totals (ms).

Category	InventDB	PostgreSQL
Basic SELECT (7)	66	11,201
Exact Match (7)	87	20
Range (11)	115	18
LIKE (8)	600	30
Compound WHERE (12)	1,380	23
ORDER BY (12)	586	91,195
GROUP BY (14)	6,092	64,023
GROUP BY + WHERE (4)	173	16,510
JOIN 2-table (12)	53,721	400,509
JOIN 3-table (11)	182,172	1,483,001
JOIN 4-table (5)	23,037	932,276
Secondary Table (9)	150	12,290
Pagination (6)	484	3,946
NULL Handling (2)	187	2,108
HAVING (4)	2,258	104,487
Edge Case (8)	23	6,733
Complex (5)	106,015	341,894
DISTINCT (6)	6,023	58,414
Total Warm	383,169	3,528,678
Total Cold	1,684,233	4,194,721
Wall Clock	36.3 min	133.9 min

Multi-Threaded (4 Threads, Equal Scale)

Both at 25M/type (100M). 143 queries × 4 threads. Times = per-thread avg warm totals (ms).

Category	InventDB	PostgreSQL
Basic SELECT (7)	63	49,576
Exact Match (7)	203	25
Range (11)	299	19
LIKE (8)	268	49
Compound WHERE (12)	2,673	33
ORDER BY (12)	1,207	266,867
GROUP BY (14)	31,930	252,294
GROUP BY + WHERE (4)	222	61,599
JOIN 2-table (12)	168,986	1,476,743
JOIN 3-table (11)	350,780	4,740,037
JOIN 4-table (5)	60,836	4,539,029
Secondary Table (9)	360	489,524
Pagination (6)	995	93,817
NULL Handling (2)	125	110,332
HAVING (4)	13,244	639,116
Edge Case (8)	45	74,083
Complex (5)	215,091	1,131,351
DISTINCT (6)	9,022	397,762
Per-Thread Warm	856,349	14,322,256
Per-Thread Cold	2,744,252	15,539,728
Wall Clock	59.3 min	512.8 min

Per-Query Statistics

Distribution of individual query execution times across all 143 queries. Both databases at equal 100M scale (25M/type). All times in milliseconds.

Single-Threaded (143 queries)

Metric	Cold (ms)		Warm (ms)
	InventDB	PG	InventDB	PG
Average	11,405	29,130	2,680	24,676
Median (p50)	299	9	33	8
p90	24,831	77,540	4,303	78,253
p95	84,065	163,653	22,590	166,776
p99	255,451	335,093	36,079	335,929
Max	290,197	448,034	86,159	440,885

Both at 25M/type (100M). PG query 7.14 excluded.

Multi-Threaded (143 queries, equal 100M, warm)

Metric	Warm (ms)
	InventDB	PG
Average	5,989	100,155
Median (p50)	44	17
p90	12,041	283,610
p95	32,747	527,609
p99	107,870	1,432,238
Max	172,887	1,938,575

Both at 25M/type (100M). Per-thread average across 4 threads, each running all 143 queries.

Reading percentiles: The median (p50) shows the typical query time. p90 means 90% of queries complete within this time. p99 represents the tail latency — the slowest 1% of queries. Under MT contention, PostgreSQL’s p99 (1.43M ms = 24 min per query) is 13.3× worse than InventDB’s p99 (108s = 1.8 min per query).

Query Time Distribution (Single-Threaded Warm)

How many queries fall into each latency bucket. Based on 143 warm-run queries at equal 100M scale (25M/type).

InventDB v0.18

Latency Bucket	Queries	% of Total	Bucket Sum	Categories
0 – 10 ms	53	37%	294 ms	GROUP BY (9), Edge Case (7), Basic SELECT (6), Range (6), Exact Match (5), Secondary Table (5), LIKE (4), JOIN 2-table (3), Distinct (3), HAVING (2), Compound WHERE (1), Pagination (1), NULL Handling (1)
11 – 50 ms	26	18%	653 ms	Range (5), Compound WHERE (5), ORDER BY (4), Secondary Table (4), Exact Match (2), GROUP BY+WHERE (2), Pagination (2), Edge Case (1), Distinct (1)
51 – 100 ms	19	13%	1,194 ms	ORDER BY (8), Compound WHERE (3), GROUP BY+WHERE (2), Pagination (2), Basic SELECT (1), GROUP BY (1), JOIN 2-table (1), JOIN 3-table (1)
101 – 500 ms	11	8%	2,624 ms	LIKE (4), Compound WHERE (2), GROUP BY (1), Pagination (1), NULL Handling (1), HAVING (1), Distinct (1)
501 – 1,000 ms	1	1%	644 ms	Compound WHERE (1)
1,000+ ms	33	23%	377,760 ms	JOIN 3-table (10), JOIN 2-table (8), JOIN 4-table (5), Complex (5), GROUP BY (3), HAVING (1), Distinct (1)

55% of queries complete in under 50ms. The 33 queries above 1 second (23%) account for 99% of total warm time and are dominated by multi-table JOINs and Complex queries, which scale quadratically with data volume.

PostgreSQL 18.2

Latency Bucket	Queries	% of Total	Bucket Sum	Categories
0 – 10 ms	74	52%	90 ms	Compound WHERE (12), Range (11), ORDER BY (10), LIKE (8), Exact Match (7), Edge Case (6), Secondary Table (5), Pagination (5), JOIN 2-table (3), Basic SELECT (2), JOIN 3-table (2), Complex (1), NULL Handling (1), JOIN 4-table (1)
11 – 50 ms	0	0%	—	—
51 – 100 ms	0	0%	—	—
101 – 500 ms	4	3%	800 ms	JOIN 2-table (2), JOIN 3-table (1), Complex (1)
501 – 1,000 ms	2	1%	1,208 ms	Basic SELECT (1), Secondary Table (1)
1,000+ ms	63	44%	3,526,555 ms	GROUP BY (14), JOIN 3-table (8), JOIN 2-table (7), DISTINCT (6), GROUP BY+WHERE (4), HAVING (4), Complex (3), JOIN 4-table (4), Basic SELECT (4), Secondary Table (3), Edge Case (2), Pagination (1), NULL Handling (1), ORDER BY (2)

PG at equal 100M scale: PostgreSQL's page cache still handles indexed lookups, but analytical queries (GROUP BY, DISTINCT, JOINs) are dramatically slower at 25M/type. The heavy queries dominate total execution time.

Key Observations (100M)

ST headline: At equal 100M scale (both 25M/type), InventDB completes 143 warm queries in 383s (6.4 min) vs PostgreSQL’s 3,529s (58.8 min) — InventDB 9.2× faster.
MT headline: Under 4-thread contention, InventDB completes in 856s per thread (14.3 min) vs PostgreSQL’s 14,322s per thread (239 min) — InventDB 16.7× faster.
InventDB wins 14 of 18 categories in both ST and MT. PostgreSQL wins only 4 indexed point-lookup categories (Exact Match, Range, LIKE, Compound WHERE) where its page cache provides sub-millisecond response.
Contention resilience: InventDB degrades only 2.2× from ST to MT, while PostgreSQL degrades 4.1×. This transforms InventDB’s 9.2× ST advantage into a 16.7× MT advantage.
Biggest gaps: JOIN 4-table queries: InventDB 61s vs PG 4,539s under MT (74× faster). Secondary Table: InventDB 360ms vs PG 490s (1,360×). NULL Handling: InventDB 125ms vs PG 110s (882×).

Query Time Distribution (Multi-Threaded, 4 Threads, Warm)

How many queries fall into each latency bucket under 4-thread contention. Both databases at equal 100M scale (25M/type). Times are per-thread average warm values across 143 queries.

InventDB v0.18

Latency Bucket	Queries	% of Total	Bucket Sum	Categories
0 – 10 ms	20	14%	66 ms	Edge Case (6), Basic SELECT (5), JOIN 2-table (3), GROUP BY (2), Secondary Table (2), NULL Handling (1), Distinct (1)
11 – 50 ms	56	39%	1,496 ms	Range (11), LIKE (8), Exact Match (7), GROUP BY (7), Compound WHERE (6), Secondary Table (5), Basic SELECT (2), GROUP BY+WHERE (2), Pagination (2), HAVING (2), Edge Case (2), Distinct (2)
51 – 100 ms	14	10%	1,108 ms	ORDER BY (6), Compound WHERE (2), GROUP BY+WHERE (2), GROUP BY (1), Secondary Table (1), Pagination (1), Distinct (1)
101 – 500 ms	15	10%	2,191 ms	ORDER BY (6), Compound WHERE (3), Pagination (2), JOIN 2-table (1), JOIN 3-table (1), Secondary Table (1), NULL Handling (1)
501 – 1,000 ms	2	1%	1,540 ms	Pagination (1), Distinct (1)
1,000+ ms	36	25%	849,948 ms	JOIN 3-table (10), JOIN 2-table (8), JOIN 4-table (5), Complex (5), GROUP BY (4), HAVING (2), Compound WHERE (1), Distinct (1)

53% of queries complete in under 50ms and 63% under 100ms at 100M scale under 4-thread contention. The 36 queries above 1 second (25%) are predominantly multi-table JOINs and Complex queries, totaling 850s — dominated by hash-join operations across 25M-record tables.

PostgreSQL 18.2

Latency Bucket	Queries	% of Total	Bucket Sum	Categories
0 – 10 ms	67	47%	95 ms	Range (11), Compound WHERE (11), ORDER BY (9), Exact Match (7), LIKE (6), Edge Case (5), JOIN 2-table (4), Secondary Table (4), Pagination (4), Basic SELECT (2), JOIN 3-table (2), JOIN 4-table (1), Complex (1)
11 – 50 ms	8	6%	132 ms	LIKE (2), Compound WHERE (1), ORDER BY (1), Pagination (1), NULL Handling (1), Edge Case (1), Secondary Table (1)
51 – 100 ms	0	0%	—	—
101 – 500 ms	2	1%	336 ms	JOIN 2-table (1), Secondary Table (1)
501 – 1,000 ms	2	1%	1,424 ms	JOIN 2-table (1), JOIN 3-table (1)
1,000+ ms	64	45%	14,320,309 ms	GROUP BY (14), JOIN 3-table (8), JOIN 2-table (6), DISTINCT (6), Basic SELECT (5), GROUP BY+WHERE (4), JOIN 4-table (4), HAVING (4), Complex (4), Secondary Table (3), ORDER BY (2), Edge Case (2), Pagination (1), NULL Handling (1)

47% of queries under 10ms via PostgreSQL’s page cache. However, 64 queries (45%) exceed 1 second under 4-thread contention, totaling 14,320s (4.0 hours) vs InventDB’s 850s (14.2 min) — a 16.8× gap. Every GROUP BY, DISTINCT, HAVING, and all JOIN aggregation queries fall into the 1s+ bucket.

Key Observations (100M MT)

Contention resilience: InventDB degrades 2.2× from ST to MT (383s → 856s). PostgreSQL degrades 4.1× (3,529s → 14,322s). InventDB’s segment-based architecture provides natural isolation under concurrent load.
Massive gaps at scale: Under MT contention, InventDB’s JOIN 4-table (61s) vs PostgreSQL’s (4,539s) shows a 74× gap. Secondary Table: InventDB 360ms vs PG 490s (1,360×). NULL Handling: InventDB 125ms vs PG 110s (882×).
Tail latency: InventDB confines its heavy queries to multi-table JOINs and Complex queries. PostgreSQL’s tail spreads across nearly every category — even Basic SELECT (COUNT) takes ~50s under MT contention at 100M.

Methodology

Query Suite

143 queries across 18 categories covering: basic SELECT, exact match, range, LIKE, compound WHERE, ORDER BY, GROUP BY (with and without WHERE), 2/3/4-table JOINs, secondary table queries, pagination, NULL handling, HAVING, edge cases, complex multi-stage operations, and DISTINCT. PostgreSQL includes one additional query (7.14: GROUP BY first_name, last_name) excluded from comparisons.

Measurement

Cold run: First execution after database open (no warm caches).
Warm run: Second execution immediately after cold (OS page cache warm).
ST mode: One query at a time, sequential execution.
MT mode: Both databases run all queries on each of 4 threads simultaneously (worst-case contention). Each thread executes all 143 queries independently with cold + warm runs.

Data Generation

Both databases use the same schema and data generation logic. Customer records include FirstName, LastName, Age, Salary, DateOfBirth, Email, FullName, and nested Address fields (Street, City, State, PostalCode). Related types (Contact, Device, Interaction) are linked via CustomerId.

Differences to Note

InventDB operates with AES-256 encryption at rest; PostgreSQL operates unencrypted.
InventDB runs with all application-level caches disabled; PostgreSQL uses ~4 GB shared_buffers.
10M test: equal scale (2.5M/type each). 100M test: equal scale (25M/type each).
MT contention model: both databases run all 143 queries on each of 4 threads simultaneously (worst-case contention).

Benchmark History

Performance progression across InventDB releases. PostgreSQL baseline (18.2) is unchanged across all versions. All tests run with InventDB caches disabled and AES-256 encryption active.

Version	Date	Config	10M ST Overall	10M MT Overall	100M ST Overall	100M MT Overall
v0.6	2026-03-05	All caches disabled	5.1× faster	12.1× faster	6.9× faster	17.1× faster
v0.9b	2026-03-11	All caches disabled	6.0× faster	12.5× faster	9.3× faster	16.5× faster
v0.9c	2026-03-13	All caches disabled	6.0× faster	11.7× faster	8.0× faster	16.4× faster
v0.12	2026-03-14	All caches disabled	6.4× faster	12.1× faster	8.1× faster	15.7× faster
v0.15	2026-03-15	All caches disabled	6.1× faster	12.0× faster	8.0× faster	17.0× faster
v0.18	2026-03-16	All caches disabled	6.3× faster	11.9× faster	9.2× faster	16.7× faster

As InventDB evolves, new benchmark snapshots will be added here. Each snapshot preserves the overall speedup ratios at that point in time, allowing readers to track progress across releases.