Timescale engineer here The initial drive for this was some of the work we did on Promscale, along with some observations I made when experimenting with potential optimizations for compression. We saw that a bunch of…
Not yet, right now all datapoints must be known at the during the sort
(Timescale engineer here) To summarize a bit on what David said here[1]: there are no modifications to the query engine, this is all using Postgres's custom operator support. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28920110
Timescale engineer here. I'm betting we'll see a nice win; we tend to see write-mostly workloads the UNDO shouldn't be too expensive, and the smaller tuple sizes should be nice. We've built Timescale to be compatible…
Hi, Timescale engineer here, do you happen to remember around when/in what version you ran into this bug?
Timescale engineer here The initial drive for this was some of the work we did on Promscale, along with some observations I made when experimenting with potential optimizations for compression. We saw that a bunch of…
Not yet, right now all datapoints must be known at the during the sort
(Timescale engineer here) To summarize a bit on what David said here[1]: there are no modifications to the query engine, this is all using Postgres's custom operator support. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28920110
Timescale engineer here. I'm betting we'll see a nice win; we tend to see write-mostly workloads the UNDO shouldn't be too expensive, and the smaller tuple sizes should be nice. We've built Timescale to be compatible…
Hi, Timescale engineer here, do you happen to remember around when/in what version you ran into this bug?