Egres: A Postgres-compatible database for heavy, multi-tenant workloads
Comments on “Egres: A Postgres-compatible database for heavy, multi-tenant workloads”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
Egres is a new single-node database that speaks the Postgres wire protocol but reuses almost no Postgres code, built to address long-standing Postgres issues like VACUUM, transaction ID wraparound, and per-connection processes.
Why it ranked
No. 55 of 155 with a score of 0.62. The panel rated it highest on technical depth (0.95) and new information (0.95), lowest on audience breadth (0.58).
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Substantive technical database release with detailed design and benchmarks, but self-reported benchmarks, single-node early-stage project with self-promotional framing; limited broad significance.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A deeply technical database launch with reproducible benchmarks, detailed storage, concurrency, scheduling, replication, and multi-tenancy design. It is highly relevant to database and infrastructure builders, though single-node status and limited SQL temper significance and some claims.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.62total under rubric v2.2
- Significance0.59
- Reader interest0.79
- Audience breadth0.58
- Practical relevance0.64
- Substantiated0.77
- Technical depth0.95
- New information0.95
- Counts against: Promotional0.19
- Counts against: Overclaim0.36
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significance | 0.56 | 0.45 | 0.78 | 0.59 | 0.33 | +0.24 | +0.143 |
| Reader interest | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.90 | 0.79 | 0.18 | +0.26 | +0.205 |
| Audience breadth | 0.58 | 0.55 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.05 | +0.13 | +0.075 |
| Practical relevance | 0.63 | 0.50 | 0.78 | 0.64 | 0.28 | +0.22 | +0.140 |
| Substantiated | 0.93 | 0.55 | 0.82 | 0.77 | 0.38 | +0.05 | +0.038 |
| Technical depth | 0.98 | 0.90 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 0.08 | +0.05 | +0.048 |
| New information | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 0.05 | +0.05 | +0.047 |
| Promotional | 0.10 | 0.35 | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.25 | −0.19 | −0.036 |
| Overclaim | 0.34 | 0.45 | 0.28 | 0.36 | 0.17 | −0.11 | −0.039 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.620 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.620 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-10-28/55/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-10-28/55.svg" alt="Ranked #55 on Rubric, 28 Oct 2026" width="245" height="28"></a>Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 4 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 28 Oct 2026, 06:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.