Re:Why Not to Build a Time-Series Database
by qaq on Wednesday November 07, 2018 @10:05PM
(#18404089)
You do realize there are say ClickHouse clusters that ingest in a few days more than largest timescale cluster can handle as it's max size.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Not to Build a Time-Series Database
by coder543 on Wednesday November 07, 2018 @10:39PM
(#18404185)
Considering that TimescaleDB has only been available for a relatively short period of time, I would love to see a source for that statement. It sounds like a really fun article to read.
Since TimescaleDB is creating a new partition for each chunk of time, it should be able to maintain its ingestion rate consistently for as long as you have storage to store that data. Perhaps it won't keep up with distributed, eventually consistent databases, but such databases generally have very limited analytical power, and if you're using them for anything but time series data, that whole "eventual consistency" thing requires a lot of careful thought.
Re:Why Not to Build a Time-Series Database
by manigandham on Wednesday November 07, 2018 @10:57PM
(#18404231)
Timescale is an extension to add automatic partitioning to PostgreSQL to give you some scalability and performance benefits. It is nowhere near the performance potential of a real distributed column-oriented database, which are strongly consistent, have rich SQL support, and even support transactions.