12 ms·
(Post author from Timescale) For the record, in reviewing HN conversation tonight I saw this and realized it was an incorrect quote of the article. Totally hon
by ryanbooz 6y ago
(Post author from Timescale)
For the record, in reviewing HN conversation tonight I saw this and realized it was an incorrect quote of the article. Totally honest mistake I'm sure, but I wanted to set the record straight.
We spent a little over a week working at Timestream benchmarking. Trying different approaches to batching metrics for ingest, threading differently, running multiple EC2 instance, etc. to improve performance.
Once we felt like we were getting the best we could, we started our final ingest which we let run for nearly 40 hours (~2 days).
The other value is absolutely correct, however. We were able to ingest 1 billion metrics into Timescale in 5 minutes.
- crb002 6y agoHow was the test set up? Big difference between slamming localhost and ingesting edge inserts from IoT devices all over.
- ryanbooz 6y agoIt's all detailed in the post (granted... it IS a detailed, long read ;-) TL;DR; - TimescaleDB was tested with a cloud setup in Digital Ocean, separate client and server. We actually ran a second, unpublished, test into Timescale Forge from the same client(s) that we tested Timestream with. We did this second TimescaleDB test just to see if something was wrong with our EC2 instances or setup in other way. So, completely separate service offering with no VPC or anything - just a raw PSQL connection from client to server. The Timescale Forge instance was 1/4 the specs of the DO server from the published results (again, the intent wasn't to replicate the TimescaleDB tests all over again), and it still easily achieved 1.2 million/sec ingest from the same client computer where Timestream only achieved ~525 metrics/sec.