[eatonphil]

TigerBeetle is more domain-specific, i.e. focused on financial transactions and high-performance, high-availability. There are just two entity types in the database: accounts and transfers between accounts. More details here https://docs.tigerbeetle.com/design/data-modeling if you're interested!

[jazzyjackson]

In comparison to {C,P}ouchDB, I think the question is around offline-first availability. Can a mobile client interact with a local database without a degraded experience and expect changes to be synchronized once a connection is re-established. I would suppose in the financial transaction space this is not A Thing.

[eatonphil]

> In comparison to {C,P}ouchDB, I think the question is around offline-first availability.

Got it, thanks! Yeah that is indeed not how TigerBeetle works. If you ever cannot connect to the cluster, you keep retry messages (idempotently) until you connect and the message succeeds.

[jlokier]

That sounds similar to the account state storage used in blockchains. In some of those, high performance and high space consumption are technical challenges, and the tendancy to have a lot of random keys (hashes) adds another.

I wonder if TigerBeetle would be suited to those storage performance challenges, and conversely if the low-level storage optimisations in certain implementations of blockchain account history would be more broadly applicable to the financial applications targeted by TigerBeetle.

[eatonphil]

Yes it is similar, but simpler! We do chat with a few companies using blockchain, looking at TigerBeetle for better throughput.

> if the low-level storage optimisations in certain implementations of blockchain account history would be more broadly applicable to the financial applications targeted by TigerBeetle.

Maybe! Any examples you're thinking of?

[jlokier]

> Any examples you're thinking of?

The three I know about are all Ethereum account/state history stores.

Besu does something interesting they call Bonsai Trees. It reportedly uses a lot less storage (about 1/10, 1.1TB instead of 12TB) than what came before in certain modes that store all the account history ("archive node"), and a bit less storage in other modes. I haven't studied how Bonsai trees work, so I don't know if the method is useful for non-blockchain styles of account history.

Erigon is well known as using perhaps the smallest storage when storing all the account history, and this is what it's optimised for. Erigon uses a fairly classic B-tree, for performance reasons (lower IOPS than LSM-trees for relevant operations). Their tricks are in how the data is organised in the B-tree, being better than the classic Ethereum methods. Erigon 2/3/4 (not sure, they merged plans) uses a new storage format that is supposed to do the same thing better. I don't think Erigon's tricks would be applicable to TigerBeetle, because TB doesn't have the storage problem of keeping everythng in Merkle trees in the first place. But it's a place to look as Ethereum's leader for archive node storage.

Last but not least, I have a work in progress storage format that is more efficient than either of the above, in that it uses much less storage for all the account history (due to efficient queryable and updatable adaptive compression), and fewer IOPS to look up individual account states (because random access is important). It uses a novel storage tree structure that is neither a B-tree nor an LSM-tree, but has some aspects of both, in order to reach for lower IOPS in various scenarios that each of those trees ar better or worse at, and it is also compresses the data in a novel way, which is important to storing histories and patterned data efficiently. It was originally motivated by Ethereum state history storage (since there's a clear benchmark), but I'm thinking it could be useful for time series data.