The use case is local user DuckDB talking to MotherDuck for $.
This is not commercially a terrible idea. Why keep paying Snowflake for bog-standard SQL query workload when SF makes it easy to migrate to Iceberg & commodity engines like MotherDuck?
The use case is local user DuckDB talking to MotherDuck for $.
This is not commercially a terrible idea. Why keep paying Snowflake for bog-standard SQL query workload when SF makes it easy to migrate to Iceberg & commodity engines like MotherDuck?
Hello, DuckDB DevRel here. Quack is independent from MotherDuck. MotherDuck has its own proprietary protocol, which has been around for years and it supports things like dual execution – see more here:
https://duckdb.org/quack/faq#what-is-the-relationship-betwee...
Of course, in the future MotherDuck can also support Quack, but this is not the only interesting use case for Quack.
Sure! Not knocking the architecture: Building out peer-to-peer federation in place of client/server makes perfect sense for DuckDB. And I’m a big fan of owning the protocol so you can optimize it to internal structures.
Just making the point that DuckDB is disruptive technology & what it’s most likely to disrupt.
MotherDuck is very expensive.
Compared to what exactly? Snowflake? Hiring an engineer to deploy DuckDB? A hobby project? FWIW I work at MotherDuck so obviously biased, but curious to hear what makes you say that.