I think people are getting a little tired of being held ransom to kdb/q and kdb consultants. Even if you have 'oil barrels' of money, eventually it is annoying enough to look elsewhere.

You don't get 'oil barrels' of money if you are in the habit of giving big chunks of it to other people.

Handing over seed capital levels of cash to external vendors inevitably gives someone the idea to seed a competitor instead.

The idea they had was to just make something up, like pandas and a series/columnar database, themselves. There are other competitors to kdb/q, but they are not as entrenched and maybe not a perfect fit. These guys cooked up a closer fit for their own systems, than, say clickhouse and other tools.

It had to be a very close fit to what they do, as kdb/q is pretty damned good at some things in finance. Maybe there is not enough money in the highly specialised areas it does very well at, for other people to come in with something new.

It would be a huge mistake to think sql is a replacement for Q.

> Versioned modifications ("time travel") - ArcticDB is bitemporal. > Timeseries indexes.

That's a nice addition.

Given how high a selling point this is, it is something that I cannot recall ever using in ArcticDB (5+ years of using). It's (financial) time series data, the past doesn't change.

Back adjusting futures contracts or back adjusting for dividends / splits come to mind as I write this, but I would just reprocess these tasks from the raw data "as of date" if needed.

100% makes sense, it depends what you're looking for.

There are however lots of time-series that do change in Finance, e.g. valuations, estimates, alt-data (an obvious one is weather predictions). The time-travel feature can being super useful outside of external data changing as well, as an audit-log, and as a way to see how your all-time evaluations have changed (say backtests).

Id be interested to hear how often you have your team use this to also store historical backtest results as people iterate on strategies.

I’ve never seen it used for backtests personally. Generally backtested results are saved as a batch of variants following some naming convention as different symbols.

So, yes, separating the use-cases out...

You would use some convention for naming and parametrising backtests, 'different' backtests would get stored separately. But once you start updating backtests, running them in a loop with changing data, that's when the time-travel feature starts to be useful.

Yeah, that’s fair, and something you basically get for free.

Also, hi James! :)

It's a primary use-case.

For pricing data, sure, but for things like fundamentals or economics where there are estimates that are revised over time, one way to store this data is with a versioning feature. It allows for PIT data without much overhead, in theory.

And actually, pricing can be revised as well, though it is much less common.

That said, versioning is not the only way to handle these kinds of things.

Versioning can also be useful as an audit trail for data transformation. Though again, these could be stored in another way as well.

That's fair feedback. A direct parquet comparison in the presentation would have been useful.