4 ms·
I see lot of hype around ClickHouse these days. Few years ago I remember TimescaleDB making the rounds, arguably being predecessor for this sort of "observabili
by zokier 2y ago
I see lot of hype around ClickHouse these days. Few years ago I remember TimescaleDB making the rounds, arguably being predecessor for this sort of "observability on SQL" thinking. The article has short paragraph mentioning Timescale, but unfortunately it doesn't really go into comparing it to ClickHouse. How does HN see the situation these days, is ClickHouse simply overtaking Timescale on all axis? That sounds bit of a shame; I have used Timescale a bit and enjoyed it, but just on such small scale that it's operational aspects did not really come up.
- valyala 2y agoClockHouse outperforms TimescaleDB in every aspect on large volumes of data. https://benchmark.clickhouse.com/ https://benchmark.clickhouse.com/ If you have small volumes of data (let's say less than a terabyte of data), then TimescaleDB is OK to use if you are OK with not so fast query performance.
- xnx 2y ago> ClockHouse That typo is a great mashup of TimescaleDB and ClickHouse.
- ekabod 2y agoClickhouse has been popular for many years. Even before Timescale.
- shin_lao 2y agoTimescale "doesn't scale" - in a nutshell. Clikchouse performance is better because it's truly column oriented and it has powerful partitioning tools. However, Clickhouse has quirks and isn't great if you need low latency data updates or if your data is mutable.
- BiteCode_dev 2y agoI echo other's sentiment, ClickHouse is much more performant than TimeScale.