4 ms·
I don't have any production experience running Clickhouse, but I have used it on a side project for an OLAP workload. Compared to Postgres Clickhouse was a coup
by harporoeder 6y ago
I don't have any production experience running Clickhouse, but I have used it on a side project for an OLAP workload. Compared to Postgres Clickhouse was a couple orders of magnitude faster (for the query pattern), and it was pretty easy to setup a single node configuration compared to lots of the "big data" stuff. Clickhouse is really a game changer.
- dominotw 6y agowhat happens when your data doesn't fit in a single node anymore?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- qaq 6y agoIt scales to crazy numbers as you add nodes in 2018 CloudFlare was ingesting 11M rows per second into their CH cluster
- aseipp 6y agoThere's replication in ClickHouse and you can just shove reads off to one of them if you'd like. From a backup/safety standpoint that's important, but I think there are other options besides just replicas, of course. From an operations standpoint, however, ClickHouse is ridiculously efficient at what it does. You can store tens of billions, probably trillions of records on a single node machine. You can query at tens of billions of rows a second, etc, all with SQL. (The only competitor I know of in the same class is MemSQL.) So another thing to keep in mind is you'll be able to go much further with a single node using ClickHouse than the alternatives. For OLAP style workloads, it's well worth investigating.
- mekster 6y agoI don't know why people still call replication a backup.