4 ms·
Can you refute the claim that TimescaleDB uses such a huge disk space that is 50 times larger than other time series database? I see no reason to use it over V
by mekster 6y ago
Can you refute the claim that TimescaleDB uses such a huge disk space that is 50 times larger than other time series database?
I see no reason to use it over VictoriaMetrics.
https://medium.com/@valyala/high-cardinality-tsdb-benchmarks-victoriametrics-vs-timescaledb-vs-influxdb-13e6ee64dd6b https://medium.com/@valyala/high-cardinality-tsdb-benchmarks...
- PaulWaldman 6y agoYes, I can refute that claim. TimescaleDB now provides built in compression. https://docs.timescale.com/latest/using-timescaledb/compression https://docs.timescale.com/latest/using-timescaledb/compress...
- mekster 6y agoYou didn't refute it technically. Are you saying the compression shrinks the data down to 2% on average? If the compression only makes the data 10 times smaller (I think I'm being generous with that ratio), it's still 5 times larger than the others.
- PaulWaldman 6y agoCompletely anecdotal, but I went from 50B to 2B per point using the compression feature. Mind you this is for slow moving sensor data collected at regular 1 second intervals. Prior to the compression feature, I had the same complaint. Timescale strongly advocated for using ZFS disk compression if compression was really required. Requiring ZFS disk compression wasn't feasible for me.