|
|
|
|
|
by enordstr
2490 days ago
|
|
Blog post co-author and Timescale engineer here. Thanks for the advice. FWIW, though, TimescaleDB supports multi-dimensional partitioning, so a specific "hot" time interval is actually typically split across many chunks, and thus server instances. We are also working on native chunk replication, which allows serving copies of the same chunk out of different server instances. Apart from these things to mitigate the hot partition problem, it's usually a good thing to be able to serve the same data to many requests using a warm cache compared to having many random reads that thrashes the cache. |
|
We're using postgres presently for some IoT, B2B applications, and the timeseries tables are a half dozen orders of magnitude larger than the other tables in our application. Certain database operations, like updates, take a very long time because of this. I've wondered if by splitting the timeseries tables onto their own server I could handle updates independently, with the main app gracefully handling the timeseries DB being offline for some period of time.
It's more than just about downtime though. If through poor querying or other issues the timeseries db is overloaded the customer impact of the slow down would be limited.