by bluestreak on 5/11/21, 1:51 PM with 9 comments
by bluestreak on 5/11/21, 1:53 PM
The big decision was which direction to take to tackle the problem. LSM trees seemed an obvious choice, but we chose an alternative route so we wouldn't lose the performance we spent years building. Our latest release supports out-of-order ingestion by re-ordering data on the fly. That's what this article is about.
Also, we had many people asking about the differences between QuestDB and other open-source databases and why users should consider giving it a try instead of other systems. When we launched on HN, readers showed a lot of interest in side-by-side comparisons to other databases on the market. One suggestion [3] that we thought would be great to try out was to benchmark ingestion and query speeds using the Time Series Benchmark Suite (TSBS) [4] developed by TimescaleDB. We're super excited to share the results in the article.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23975807
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23616878
by elabajaba on 5/12/21, 12:47 AM
Most of the DB benchmarks I've seen are missing memory usage, which imo matters more for hobbyist/small scale users who are fine with paying $0-$10/month, but would rather not pay ~$30-40/month for the 8GB RAM minimum a lot of time series DBs seem to want.
by hartem_ on 5/11/21, 8:12 PM
Curious to learn more about your approach to verifying the correctness of the implementation. Did you try testing it with Jepsen or something similar?
by alcio on 5/11/21, 8:55 PM
by temren on 5/13/21, 10:36 AM