ClickHouse recently has been a breath of fresh air compared to using timescaledb for a long time. Although psql is the greatest there is and I really enjoyed the fact that I could rely on a single database system to run everything, when it came to migration maintenance and deployment it's really a pain and it also feels like development on timescaledb is a bit wishy washy with all the structural changes from version to version and it really feels like an alpha product sometimes.
I was using TimescaleDB some very long time ago, things have changed quite a lot since (it's now even named differently).
In my current setup I was thinking on doing both: upgrading postgresql to timescaledb (to archive old data etc.), and to deploy ClickHouse in parallel. I'm still considering whether to go big on PeerDB to get ClickHouse mirror or just deploy it separately without additional fragility layer.
Would you not recommend using timescaledb at all? I definitely want to avoid alpha-quality software pain, since PostgreSQL is one of the most rock-solid parts of the stack at the moment.
Worked on peerdb. If you're able to batch changes on your end & push to both postgres & clickhouse, do that. Only move to peerdb when you know you need cdc
If your data is too big for postgres, it seems like moving straight to Clickhouse is the best option. We have been through an whole array of distributed database technologies, and Clickhouse might be first one that doesn't have too many compromises.
Clickhouse has been a game changer for some of the companies i have worked in the past. This reminds me of this podcast episode (1) from the Rust in Production pod about their Rust adoption.
Same. We replicated some data from Postgres, it was easy to set up, similar enough that the transition was trivial, and really good performance out of the box. One of those good "use the right tool for the job" experiences.
> You can open a pull request as an experiment, without aiming for it to be merged - it will be tested with the same level of scrutiny as production releases. Found a new memory allocator, a new compression library, a new hash table, a data format, or a sorting algorithm? - bring it to ClickHouse, and it will expose it inside-out
ClickHouse dev here, but this is true. ClickHouse contributed finding several bugs on our third-party libs (jemalloc, librdkafka for 100%, there much more, but I only worked on these), in linux kernel and basically everywhere. We have very rigorous fuzzers (yes, multiple fuzzers on multiple levels), running tests in insane number of configurations. I think the last number I heard a year ago is around 400 hours for a complete CI run for a single commit (not PR, but commit). So yeah, pretty insane, in the good way.
Clickhouse is *really* gatekeeping the "zero copy replication" where you store data on object-storage and have high availability from the open source version.
In my current setup I was thinking on doing both: upgrading postgresql to timescaledb (to archive old data etc.), and to deploy ClickHouse in parallel. I'm still considering whether to go big on PeerDB to get ClickHouse mirror or just deploy it separately without additional fragility layer.
Would you not recommend using timescaledb at all? I definitely want to avoid alpha-quality software pain, since PostgreSQL is one of the most rock-solid parts of the stack at the moment.
Managers rejected it because it wasn't well known and was seen as "some database made by Russians."
On a personal level, it's quite sad to have seen that train coming so early and not been able to get on board.
1. https://open.spotify.com/episode/0TBKDUhO0KihBxEzZqnQx1
Wow