I did some benchmarks on it previously to show how much of an improvement it gives over the stock HEAP engine
EDIT: correct link to the public dashboard below, thanks for the heads up @kiwicopple
This is likely because the author didn't give Claude a scratchpad or space to think, essentially forcing it to mix its thoughts with its report. I'd be interested to see if using the official thinking mechanism gives it enough space to get differing results.
I wonder if they were unaware of it or disregarded it for a reason —I currently am in a similar situation as the one described in the blog, trying to shard a massive Postgres DB.
However, you can absolutely run that many users on a Postgres cluster of that size today on modern hardware. Connections are absolutely a sore point and probably my number one pain point as a Postgres admin day to day. Pg bouncer is incredibly easy to run though. You rarely actually need 70,000 connections most will be idle most of the time anyway it’s not like MySQL can actually serve 70,000 queries on 70,000 connections simultaneously. But it certainly makes administration and the programming model more difficult.
When it comes to the business model: it seems an acqui-hire by Supabase/Neon/etc would be the best bet. It insures the team's focus is on the core product instead of the litany of things to figure out when creating a pg hosting service (payments, downtime, upgrades, customer support, ...) in this highly competitive and demanding market.