I wrote a post about using H3 or any DGGS for that matter. Yes it speeds things up but you loose accuracy. If search is the primary concern it can help but if any level of accuracy matters I would just use a better engine with GeoParquet to handle it. https://sedona.apache.org/latest/blog/2025/09/05/should-you-...
SpatialBench is an open benchmark suite for spatial SQL. The goal is to compare engines on price-performance, since serverless makes raw “x times faster” claims hard to interpret.
I used it to compare Databricks SQL Serverless (Medium) vs Databricks Jobs clusters with Apache Sedona 1.7 across 12 queries (from simple filters to joins, distance joins, multi-way joins, KNN) at SF100 and SF1000 (SF1000 is roughly 500GB uncompressed Parquet).
TLDR apart from one query, Sedona was up to ~6x better on cost per query, and also covered more queries under the same 10 hour timeout guardrails. Some queries didn’t finish or errored on either side, so there is a capability matrix in the post.
I wrote a book on PostGIS and used it for years and these single node analytical tools make sense when PostGIS performance starts to break down. For many tasks PostGIS works great, but again you are limited by the fact that your tables have to live in the DB and can only scale as much as the computing resources you have allocated.
In terms of number of functions PostGIS is still the leader, but for analytical functions (spatial relationships, distances, etc) having those in place in these systems is important. DuckDB started this but this has a spatial focused engine. You can use the two together, PostGIS for transactional processing and queries, and then SedonaDB for processing and data prep.
A combination of tools makes a lot of sense here especially as the data starts to grow.