Does anyone know how Materialize stacks up against VIATRA in terms of performance? VIATRA seems very similar to Materialize. They have multiple algorithms implemented to incrementalize queries, including Differential Dataflow. The main difference seems to be that it's based on Graph Patterns instead of SQL.
It's a good question, but you'd have to ask them I think. Tamas (from Itemis) and I were in touch for a while, mostly shaking out why DD was out-performing their previous approach, but I haven't heard from him since.
My context at the time was that they were focused on doing single rounds of incremental updates, as in a PL UX, whereas DD aims at high throughput changes across multiple concurrent timestamps. That's old information though, so it could be very different now!
A while ago (2018), the people behind VIATRA performed a cross-technology benchmark where they compared their performance to 9 other incremental and non-incremental solutions (Neo4j, Drools, OCL, SQLite, MySQL, among others) [1]. Perhaps it could be interesting to rerun that benchmark while including Materialize?
This would give us a direct comparison between Materialize and other existing solutions. Their benchmark is however based on a kind of UX case, so the tests might be a bit biased towards that use case.
[1] The Train Benchmark: cross-technology performance evaluation of continuous model queries
