让下一篇重要论文，不再错过。

原文摘要

Choosing a file format for tabular data is a routine engineering decision, yet published comparisons often time reads served from the operating-system page cache, use one session, or rely on a single synthetic dataset. This article benchmarks fifteen format and access-path configurations (CSV, JSON Lines, Pickle, Feather, Parquet, ORC, DuckDB, and SQLite, with several access paths) on two real public datasets, New York City taxi trips and United States airline on-time records, at 50,000 to 3 million rows. Every measurement uses an explicitly cold cache, randomized execution order, and three independent sessions (with restarts on the laptop), and is analyzed with bootstrap intervals and Holm-adjusted permutation tests. Parquet answered a filtered aggregation 2.6 to 11 times faster than CSV, while JSON Lines was 10 to 27 times slower. A secondary index made SQLite queries 2.6 to 4.8 times slower on randomly ordered data and helped only on data sorted by the filtered column, at low selectivity. A row filter inside the Parquet reader was significantly faster than a projected scan on flight data from one million rows and on both datasets at three million, and row-group skipping needs several row groups, which the default writer produced only at 3 million rows. A 4 GB Linux host ran out of memory on configurations that a 24 GB laptop completed and reversed some orderings, such as Pickle versus Parquet. Code, derived data, and raw timings are released.