Timescale, an open-source time-series SQL database for PostgreSQL

Re:Timescale, an open-source time-series SQL database for Po... by RobAtticus on Thursday August 10, 2017 @08:39PM (#14985715)

We are working on benchmarks comparing ourselves to other solutions so hopefully we'll have concrete numbers on those soon. (Incidentally, we did a blog post on us vs plain PostgreSQL today: https://blog.timescale.com/timescaledb-vs-6a696248104e)

At a high level though, we do find that having native support for full SQL to be a big win. Also, if you already store metadata or other relational data that you want to combine with your time-series data, it's great to be able to use one DB instead of separate solutions. Performance wise we do believe we are competitive and in some cases much better, and we have the 20 years of stability from PostgreSQL to build on.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Timescale, an open-source time-series SQL database for Po... by jnordwick on Friday August 11, 2017 @05:21AM (#14987911)

I look forward to a KDB comparison. Please dont forget them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Timescale, an open-source time-series SQL database for Po... by trevman on Friday August 11, 2017 @09:19AM (#14989324)

Me too.

At first blush KDB is orders of magnitude faster, especially if using a GZIP card.

But Timescale is open source and not core locked.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Timescale, an open-source time-series SQL database for Po... by continuations on Saturday August 12, 2017 @01:48AM (#14996654)

> At first blush KDB is orders of magnitude faster

Are there actual benchmarks that show KDB being orders of magnitude faster than Timescale? How many orders of magnitude are we talking about?

[ Parent | on HN ]