4 ms·
I've read claims/benchmarks that TimescaleDB handles inserts faster than plain PostgreSQL, but how? From what I read this is because of the performance effects
by jasfi 4y ago
I've read claims/benchmarks that TimescaleDB handles inserts faster than plain PostgreSQL, but how? From what I read this is because of the performance effects of using partitions to reduce index updates, but plain PostgreSQL tables can use partitions too.
- philliphaydon 4y agoThey did a blog post about insert perf using PostgreSQL 9.# and it was the use of their partition. The same year PostgreSQL 10 dropped which added partitioning support so they revisited it and still came out on top. But they have never revisited the insert perf in 11/12/13/14. And as far as I can tell they don’t support pg13 yet. So im curious if PostgreSQL caught up or not, or if the results are even real.
- gcbirzan 4y agoTimescale does support PostgreSQL 14 just fine.
- philliphaydon 4y agoJust double checked and I stand corrected. 13/14 work fine. Thanks.
- jasfi 4y agoThanks, I guess the only way to know is to run my own benchmarks. Perhaps they have their own partitioning code which allows for faster performance.
- gcbirzan 4y agoYou should watch this talk, in particular here for the exact question you have: https://youtu.be/eQKbbCg0NqE?t=1489 https://youtu.be/eQKbbCg0NqE?t=1489
- jasfi 4y agoThe speaker compares TimescaleDB to PostgreSQL 10, so this is out of date since PostgreSQL is on v14 now.