Update benchmark docs with corrected ClickBench results

- Update cold run: 36.43s → 120.25s (with proper cache flushing)
- Add warm run results: 35.70s
- Update comparison table: Focus on QuestDB and TimescaleDB
- Remove VictoriaLogs (not time-series DB)
- Update performance ratios: 1.80x faster than QuestDB, 9.39x faster than TimescaleDB
- Add storage efficiency comparisons
- Replace detailed query table with summary statistics
- Update GitHub link to corrected results file
- Emphasize ClickBench compliance (cache flushing, query caching disabled)

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

Author: Ignacio Van Droogenbroeck

docs/performance/benchmarks.md

@@ -8,22 +8,21 @@ Arc has been benchmarked using [ClickBench](https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickB
 
 ## ClickBench Results
 
-**Arc is the fastest time-series database**, completing all 43 queries on ClickBench in **107.66 seconds total** (36.43s cold run).
+**Arc is the fastest time-series database**, completing all 43 queries on ClickBench with **120.25s cold run** and **35.70s warm run**.
 
 ### Official Rankings (Cold Run)
 
 | Database | Cold Run | vs Arc | Architecture |
 |----------|----------|--------|--------------|
-| **Arc** | **36.43s** | **1.0x** | DuckDB + Parquet + HTTP API |
-| VictoriaLogs | 113.8s | 3.1x slower | LogsQL engine |
-| QuestDB | 223.2s | 6.1x slower | Columnar time-series |
-| Timescale Cloud | 626.6s | 17.2x slower | PostgreSQL extension |
-| TimescaleDB | 1022.5s | 28.1x slower | PostgreSQL extension |
+| **Arc** | **120.25s** | **1.0x** | DuckDB + Parquet + HTTP API |
+| QuestDB | 216.30s | 1.80x slower | Columnar time-series |
+| TimescaleDB | 1,128.87s | 9.39x slower | PostgreSQL extension |
 
 :::tip Key Achievements
-- **Cold Run**: 36.43s (fastest cold start among time-series databases)
-- **Complete Benchmark**: 107.66s total for all 43 queries (3 runs each)
-- **Arc is the only time-series database to complete ClickBench in under 2 minutes via HTTP API**
+- **Cold Run**: 120.25s (fastest cold start among time-series databases)
+- **Warm Run**: 35.70s (with proper filesystem cache)
+- **1.80x faster than QuestDB**, 9.39x faster than TimescaleDB
+- **5.29x less storage** than QuestDB (13.76 GB vs 72.84 GB)
 :::
 
 ## Test Environment
@@ -53,60 +52,19 @@ Arc has been benchmarked using [ClickBench](https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickB
 
 ## ClickBench Query Results
 
-All 43 analytical queries completed successfully. Results show **3 runs** per query:
-
-### Query Performance (seconds)
-
-| Query | Run 1 | Run 2 | Run 3 | Best | Notes |
-|-------|-------|-------|-------|------|-------|
-| Q0 | 0.3385 | 0.2606 | 0.3211 | 0.2606 | Simple aggregation |
-| Q1 | 0.5951 | 0.5608 | 0.5928 | 0.5608 | COUNT with GROUP BY |
-| Q2 | 0.5631 | 0.3030 | 0.1436 | 0.1436 | Aggregation with filter |
-| Q3 | 0.1057 | 0.0905 | 0.0764 | 0.0764 | Fast filter scan |
-| Q4 | 0.3500 | 0.3335 | 0.3234 | 0.3234 | Multiple GROUP BY |
-| Q5 | 0.5696 | 0.5386 | 0.5515 | 0.5386 | Complex aggregation |
-| Q6 | 0.0598 | 0.0590 | 0.0593 | 0.0590 | Selective filter |
-| Q7 | 0.0564 | 0.0548 | 0.0550 | 0.0548 | Simple scan |
-| Q8 | 0.4429 | 0.4716 | 0.4487 | 0.4429 | JOIN operation |
-| Q9 | 0.5682 | 0.5676 | 0.5602 | 0.5602 | Heavy aggregation |
-| Q10 | 0.1413 | 0.1428 | 0.1408 | 0.1408 | String operations |
-| Q11 | 0.1875 | 0.2139 | 0.1815 | 0.1815 | Complex filter |
-| Q12 | 0.5742 | 0.5466 | 0.5648 | 0.5466 | Window functions |
-| Q13 | 0.9176 | 0.8787 | 0.8699 | 0.8699 | Multiple JOINs |
-| Q14 | 0.5764 | 0.5977 | 0.6207 | 0.5764 | Subqueries |
-| Q15 | 0.3892 | 0.4011 | 0.4074 | 0.3892 | DISTINCT operations |
-| Q16 | 1.0798 | 1.0383 | 1.0153 | 1.0153 | Heavy computation |
-| Q17 | 0.7985 | 0.7727 | 0.7853 | 0.7727 | String matching |
-| Q18 | 3.3340 | 3.3020 | 3.3478 | 3.3020 | Complex analytics |
-| Q19 | 0.0757 | 0.0683 | 0.0570 | 0.0570 | Simple filter |
-| Q20 | 1.0360 | 0.9106 | 0.9079 | 0.9079 | Aggregation pipeline |
-| Q21 | 0.8482 | 0.8400 | 0.8520 | 0.8400 | GROUP BY with filter |
-| Q22 | 1.7228 | 1.6782 | 1.7208 | 1.6782 | Multiple aggregations |
-| Q23 | 0.5097 | 0.5317 | 0.5237 | 0.5097 | Complex WHERE |
-| Q24 | 0.1973 | 0.2058 | 0.2073 | 0.1973 | Simple aggregation |
-| Q25 | 0.3004 | 0.2941 | 0.2923 | 0.2923 | String operations |
-| Q26 | 0.1375 | 0.1461 | 0.1384 | 0.1375 | Fast lookup |
-| Q27 | 0.9975 | 0.9866 | 0.9847 | 0.9847 | Complex JOIN |
-| Q28 | 9.1263 | 9.1334 | 9.1713 | 9.1263 | Heavy analytics |
-| Q29 | 0.0787 | 0.0802 | 0.0787 | 0.0787 | Simple filter |
-| Q30 | 0.7854 | 0.6878 | 0.5742 | 0.5742 | Scan with filter |
-| Q31 | 0.6781 | 0.6799 | 0.6920 | 0.6781 | Aggregation |
-| Q32 | 1.9562 | 1.9239 | 1.9322 | 1.9239 | Window functions |
-| Q33 | 2.3368 | 2.2877 | 2.3325 | 2.2877 | Complex analytics |
-| Q34 | 2.3724 | 2.3640 | 2.3611 | 2.3611 | Multiple GROUP BY |
-| Q35 | 0.5792 | 0.7450 | 0.5765 | 0.5765 | Aggregation pipeline |
-| Q36 | 0.1609 | 0.1560 | 0.1666 | 0.1560 | Simple scan |
-| Q37 | 0.1366 | 0.1455 | 0.1282 | 0.1282 | Fast filter |
-| Q38 | 0.1007 | 0.1072 | 0.0992 | 0.0992 | Selective scan |
-| Q39 | 0.2687 | 0.2780 | 0.2750 | 0.2687 | String operations |
-| Q40 | 0.0651 | 0.0633 | 0.0686 | 0.0633 | Simple lookup |
-| Q41 | 0.0757 | 0.0642 | 0.0626 | 0.0626 | Fast aggregation |
-| Q42 | 0.2365 | 0.2269 | 0.2251 | 0.2251 | Final query |
-
-**Total Cold Run (First Run)**: 36.43s
-**Average Query Time**: 0.847s
-**Fastest Query**: 0.0548s (Q7)
-**Slowest Query**: 9.1263s (Q28)
+All 43 analytical queries completed successfully with proper cache flushing compliance:
+
+**Performance Summary:**
+- **Total Cold Run**: 120.25s
+- **Total Warm Run**: 35.70s
+- **Cold/Warm Ratio**: 3.37x (proper cache flushing verification)
+- **Storage Size**: 13.76 GB (Parquet with Snappy compression)
+
+**Query Execution:**
+- All 43 queries passed successfully
+- Tested via HTTP REST API with JSON output format
+- Filesystem cache properly flushed before cold runs
+- Query result caches disabled per ClickBench compliance
 
 ## Why Arc is Fast
 
@@ -167,22 +125,20 @@ Arc excels at:
 
 ## Comparison with Other Databases
 
-### vs VictoriaLogs (3.1x faster)
-
-- **Architecture**: LogsQL vs SQL
-- **Storage**: Custom format vs Parquet
-- **Query interface**: Custom API vs HTTP REST + SQL
-
-### vs QuestDB (6.1x faster)
+### vs QuestDB (1.80x faster cold, 1.20x faster warm)
 
 - **Architecture**: Custom columnar engine vs DuckDB
-- **Storage**: Proprietary vs Parquet
-- **Query complexity**: Limited SQL vs Full SQL
+- **Storage**: Proprietary (72.84 GB) vs Parquet (13.76 GB)
+- **Cold Run**: Arc 120.25s vs QuestDB 216.30s
+- **Warm Run**: Arc 35.70s vs QuestDB 42.70s
+- **Storage Efficiency**: Arc uses 5.29x less storage
 
-### vs TimescaleDB (28.1x faster)
+### vs TimescaleDB (9.39x faster cold, 12.39x faster warm)
 
 - **Architecture**: PostgreSQL extension vs Purpose-built
-- **Storage**: Row-based vs Columnar
+- **Storage**: Row-based (19.30 GB) vs Columnar (13.76 GB)
+- **Cold Run**: Arc 120.25s vs TimescaleDB 1,128.87s
+- **Warm Run**: Arc 35.70s vs TimescaleDB 442.34s
 - **Query engine**: General-purpose vs Analytics-optimized
 
 ## Write Performance
@@ -248,8 +204,8 @@ All benchmarks are reproducible. See [Running Benchmarks](/arc/performance/runni
 
 ### Download Results
 
-- [c6a.4xlarge_cache_disabled.json](https://github.com/Basekick-Labs/ClickBench/blob/main/arc/results/c6a.4xlarge_cache_disabled.json)
-- [Full ClickBench Results](https://clickhouse.com/benchmark)
+- [c6a.4xlarge.json](https://github.com/Basekick-Labs/ClickBench/blob/main/arc/results/c6a.4xlarge.json) - Corrected results with proper cache flushing
+- [Full ClickBench Results](https://benchmark.clickhouse.com)
 
 ## What This Means