Talk:Time series database

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Databases / Computer science  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of database related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (marked as Mid-importance).


It would be good to get a list of known time series database systems, open source and proprietary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Eventual Consistency is not a database, it is a property of many distributed databases. Xorlev (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why RavenDB made it into the list of time series databases? It's a document/json database, these aren't very efficient at storing time series. Further, RavenDB uses Lucene full text indexing, which is totally wrong tool for time series. Is it some marketing effort to push RavenDB everywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why Informix is called out in the commercial relational database section. Why? Many commercial DBs support time series including Teradata, Vertica, Oracle, etc. Is this IBM spam? Virtualelvis (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Virtualelvis: You all miss the point of what we are writing here. Not a replacement for Google for sure, an encyclopedia yes. We also seem to forget what the article is about. —Dirk Beetstra T C 17:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Agree completely. I'm not sure the relevancy of Informix at all here. I'm not suggesting that we list all the commercial databases that support time series, as the list would be long as subject to spam. Rather, I'm questioning why Informix is more important than all of those DBs.

Blacklisted Links Found on Time series database[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Time series database which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bguru\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please revert changes after 719858484 and re-apply additions from IPs[edit]

Ushkin N (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

The time series database domain is evolving and is non-standardized. The vast majority of modern TSDB implementations have been released within the last 2-3 years, most of them are open-source and are lacking articles on Wikipedia describing the product or the company behind it. In particular, open-source databases often have no official sponsors and cannot benefit from implied notability by linking them to company pages. Having a list of external links to TSDBs is a valuable content as evidenced by 44 additions from a wide range of editors (signed in and anon) to external links section since January 1st, 2016 alone. The list contains some 20+ entries. The list has been repeatedly deleted (19 times in total) by one particular editor although there have 1 more mass delete revision by another editor. This section is an attempt to develop a community consensus around the external links section. Other than yes/no approach, the solution may be in creating a section containing a table of TSDBs along with some common criteria as in Graph_database, for example. Rodionos (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Rodionos, I'm not sure if you're talking about HighKing or maybe Beetstra. I need to point you to WP:EL, I think. Also, I am not sure what we are discussing here--I thought you were taking issue with this. Finally, an author who writes up something for Wikipedia does not have ownership of the content and cannot unilaterally decide to remove said content if other editors wish to keep it. This is what it says under your editing window: "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". Drmies (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Drmies, no this is a separate issue. See below. The issue under this paragraph refers to External Links which are being continuously added by a variety of editors and subsequently deleted as non-notable, not as WP:EL, (19 deletion in total) by editor HighKing.Rodionos (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
      • On my talk page you asked "could you please tell why an author is not allowed to remove the section of the page that he/she contributed in the first place", and you were edit warring over this--and you said you'd take it up on the article talk page. That's not the EL section. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Drmies See section 'TS transformation' below on the article talk page. There are multiple issues with this article and I believe it would be better to keep issues separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodionos (talkcontribs) 14:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Can you list the multiple issues please? Best to deal with as many as we can while this page has some attention. -- HighKing++ 20:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Drmies, HighKing As a consensus solution, I'd like to refactor External Links section into the List of time series database, similar to Columns: Name, License, Language, Description. Would this work for everyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodionos (talkcontribs) 05:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
That might work well but be aware that the criteria for inclusion in the list should still be notability. If the list is large enough it may make sense to have a separate article like the one you've referenced. -- HighKing++ 12:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:NNC specifically states that "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content". If the list evolves into being notable enough to be a stand-alone article, it will be subject to WP:NOTESAL. The individual items in the list are subject to WP:DUE and overall content policies. With this in mind, I would like to seed the list with entries that are currently present in article and those that were contributed to External Links as of January 1, 2015 and later. Rodionos (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Rodionos: I am not sure whether you are talking about this edit of mine, where I state "clearout list, this should only contain either wikilinked items, or independently referenced items". You reverted that edit ("no wikipedia guidelines referenced during mass delete"; while I think that the explanation should give enough suggestion that there is a guideline, or even policy, behind it). Anyway, I re-reverted that list pointing to ".. see WP:EL, WP:NOT, etc. etc.". The specific items there are WP:NOTDIR and WP:ELLIST respectively. Taking the latter explanation: "However, the lists themselves should not be composed of external links. These lists are primarily intended as providing direct information and internal navigation, not a directory of sites on the web." These lists did provide just external links with minimal, unsourced, information (note that Graph_database#List_of_graph_databases is a bit better, though many are still unsourced and one can ask whether the item exists in the first place, or whether they belong in the list at all). The latter of those two problems is that these lists tend to be utter WP:SPAMHOLEs. For many cases also a dedicated hobbyist can write his own interpretation, make it available for download, and add it to these lists - and many do that. Some method of filtering is needed on these, and the best is that if it is not independently (and not only primary) sourceable, then it is not of real importance and it has no place on this list.

You are of course free to set up a table, and include the items that do meet our inclusion standards. And maybe there I am wrong, that all these items are 'notable' enough to be included, but the burden is on the person who wants to include to show that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Dirk BeetstraFirst of all, a proper Wikipedia table with the following columns Database Name, License, Language, Description is not a list of external links. As such as, there a specific set of policies that have been developed by the community, and WP:DUE is most directly applicable. I agree that table should not be a WP:SPAMHOLE. I don't think a hobbyist can develop a database, although some open source systems are indeed developed by a small group of people, at least initially. In your closing remarks you appear to suggest that you will enforce notability at the item level. Please review WP:NNC - "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content". The standard applied to items is WP:DUE. I think it's not fair to other editors to introduce new policies such as burden of proof and notability for individual table records in spite of WP:NNC? To give you an example, OpenTSDB database was part of external links list. It will be a record in the "List of Time Series Database" table with 4 columns. It's not notable since it has no article in Wikipedia. The Graph Database list contains a lot of records like this. OpenTSDB should be on the list because this database exists and has been around for 3+ years. What do you think? Rodionos (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I reverted what was merely a loos list of external links - in a table format that is better.
I agree that information does not necessarily need to be notable to be included in a notable article, however, if something is a verifiable and true does also not mean that it needs to be included. Read the opposite of your statement - you mean that the article needs to be notable, but that you can include all non-notable information in the article.
Regarding database applications - you say that the noted examples are not developed by hobbyists, but by established programmers. That also means that the items can show that they are worthy of inclusion. Again, I agree that information does not need to be notable to be included, but if one can show that it is (and everything included needs to be referenced by reliable sources anyway), there is nothing wrong with showing notability. Otherwise you do run the risk that on other subjects, and maybe even here, you will include information based on 'I checked their website and they say that they wrote a TS database application so I am including it here'). WP:N is a guideline, but it is based on our pillars/policies WP:NOT, WP:V etc. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that as the article stands now (practically completely unsourced), you will have trouble showing that the subject itself is notable ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
To get started, I converted the list to a sortable table with additional columns for license and language. Case-insensitive sorting applied as on Graph Databases page. Rodionos
We now have several entries in the list which are of two types: databases with links to wikipedia articles and databases that have no links to wikipedia articles. Linked databases are either linked to company name such as Basho and to database such as Kdb. What would be the right common criteria to determine notability of a database? Does the entry in the list (the database, not the company) has to be notable or should WP:NNC apply? In simple terms, should the entry be excluded from the list if it doesn't have a product or company article? If not, what other criteria of notability should be in place? Rodionos

TS transformations[edit]

I am the author of the section on TS transformations which I compiled as a list of capabilities implemented by databases referenced in External Links. The External Links section was deleted. The TS transformations is no longer consistent with the remaining references. It provides wrong information to the reader that these TS transformations are implemented by the notable TSDBs. I would like to delete this section because it longer applies.Rodionos (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd support removing these example transformations too, especially as they are totally unsourced. ghytred talk 17:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Rodionos, are you saying that the transformations are only applicable to a product that is not currently listed? Such as Axibase only? Are you saying that the transformations are not supported by the products listed in the "Example TSDB systems" section? If not, where did you get the list from? -- HighKing++ 20:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Ghytred, re. unsourced. I basically compiled a master list of all possible transformations and reviewed API documentation for databases that are currently not listed in the article to cross-check what's implemented. FOSS entries were easiest to work with since their API docs are public and doesn't require registration. I have no idea to what extent this list is supported by remaining databases.Rodionos (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Rodionos, can you tell us for which databases you reviewed the API documentation please. -- HighKing++ 12:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@Rodionos: that list is totally unsourced, and the rest of the article is also practically unsourced. What I get of this (".. which I compiled as a list of ..") seems to be original research. Can you cite independent sources for this compilation? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Dirk BeetstraI am actually advocating that this section be deleted. So far we have 3 editors in favor of deleting the section on TS transformations. Rodionos (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, if there are no independent sources for it, it should indeed go. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I concur. It appears that the list was Original Research and that there are no standards for time series operations and transformations. I suspect the list was really the transformations that could be applied by one product (Axibase). I'll delete the list. -- HighKing++ 15:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Addition of Axibase[edit]

I note that Rodionos has created a standalone list of TSDB previously and has now added Axibase back into this article. As pointed out previously by the same editor, WP:LISTN states that the contents of the list are not generally governed by notability guidelines but that the list topic is considered notable if it has been documented in (reliable) sources for notability. (note: As a small aside, I have not been able to locate such a source - can anybody else?) In WP:LSC it states that Selection criteria for inclusion in lists should be ... supported by reliable sources. WP:CSC states that Lists are commonly written to satisfy either the criteria that Every entry meets the notability criteria or Every entry does not meet the notability criteria or Short complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. The second and third criteria do not apply, therefore the first criteria applies. Before deleting the Axibase entry and other entries that fail notability criteria, would any editor care to comment or make a case for inclusion/exception in the case of non-notable entries? -- HighKing++ 16:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see a discussion on External List above. We already discussed the notability of the list and the items there. In support of my position, I would like to invoke WP:NNC that states that "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content". The inclusion should be neutral and the individual items in the list are subject to WP:DUE and overall content policies. The list is small, it's not a link farm, it doesn't contain external links. My affiliation with one of the entries in the list is disclosed on my user page. The list is similar to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodionos (talkcontribs) 16:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rodionos, your quote above from WP:NNC is not the entire sentence. The entire paragraph reads:
The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability and lists and Lead and selection criteria.
If you read the "additional information about list articles", you come to WP:LSC and WP:CSC as I've pointed out above. Finally, the problem with you being the CEO of Axibase (and therefore WP:COI, etc) is that it just looks like you are trying every trick and wiki-lawyering to get Axibase mentioned in the article. -- HighKing++ 21:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your inflammatory language and the personal attacks. You went as far as suggesting that I'm a paid editor on my talk page. Can we have a civilized discussion on the right criteria for notability of rows in the database list. If you agree, please contribute to the base paragraph where the external list is discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodionos (talkcontribs) 22:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I think you'll find that if you actually read carefully what has been said, there is no inflammatory language and certainly no personal attacks. Feel free to point out examples of one or the other. Your assertion that I suggested you were a "paid editor" is untrue. On your Talk page I was referring to the fact the you have declared that you are the CEO of Axibase and therefore it is prety obvious that you have a financial interest in Axibase. And also obvious that it is in *your* financial interests to promote your company and your product. And therefore it is not unreasonable for me and other editors to wonder and/or question (and possibly conclude) that your multiple attempts to contribute to this article are all driven by the sole motivation of promoting your company and your product. Your declared conflict of interest and your promotion of Axibase go hand in hand on this issue. If you've nothing to add in terms of a response based on policy of guidelines then lets wait to see if another editor wants to provide their opinion and perhaps we can reach a community consensus. -- HighKing++ 13:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
If calling my references to Wikipedia policies "tricks and wiki-lawyering" isn't inflammatory, I'm not sure what else is. At any rate, I appreciate your discontinuing this practice. 1) My affiliation was public ahead of any edits. 2) I don't have financial interest from the edits. 3) I contributed all kind of databases to the list that have no company/product articles and yet should be included based on due weight policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodionos (talkcontribs) 14:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I used the word "tricks" as a summary of your previous behaviour. For examply, your edits to include a list of TS transformations in the article - only for us to discover that they were not industry standard transformations, but actually a list of transformations of your product. Leaving aside the disruption caused by this section before this was made clear, I view your original intention to include these transformations as a "trick" in order to promote your product's capabilities under the guise of adding generic information to this article. I use the words "wiki-lawyering" to describe your selective quoting of only those parts of sentences within the policies and guidelines that suits your argument and your current attempts to justify your inclusion of Axibase in a list in the article.
1) You say that your affiliation was public ahead of any edits. That is not true. Your affiliation was only placed on your User page on August 10th 2016 - after most of your edits including all those relating to TS transformations and your initial attempts to create an Axibase article and to include mention of Axibase into this article.
2) You state that you don't have financial interest from the edits. Yet you are the CEO of Axibase and will profit from sales of your product? Which would explain a motivation on your part to use Wikipeda to promote your product, wouldn't you agree?
3) Yes you did - which is why I created this section to ask the community their opinion on whether we should allow this list to be a list of every product under the sun, notable or not, despite guidelines such as WP:CSC recommending the opposite).
Under the circumstances and given that we appear to disagree, we should request a third party opinion. Again. -- HighKing++ 17:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Let me just say that what you claim is not true. My affiliation was public ahead of edits that we're discussing. List of TS transformations is not related to Axibase products. I have no financial interest in the edits. All entries that I added existed before you deleted them, so your claim that this is a "list of every product under the sun" is wrong. I quote selectively and I provide links to policies. You have no right to call this "tricks" and "wiki-lawyering". If you continue attacks on me including creating dimunitive summaries of my behavior or using those derogatory terms, I am going to report you to arbcom and you can get blocked for this misconduct. Rodionos
I got 1) wrong above. You did have your affiliation with Axibase public on your User page before you made any edits so I hold my hand up. I still do not understand how you can say that you have no financial interest in the edits. Is it not true that you have a financial interest in Axibase? Is it not true that promoting Axibase is part of your function and that you have a financial interest in sales of Axibase? -- HighKing++ 12:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have pruned the list down, and requested references for the remainder that they are 'notable' for their support of Time series. Items in the list should only be in this list if it is independently verifyable (per WP:V/WP:RS that they support time series. Otherwise, this is just a WP:SPAMHOLE. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

DB-engines ranking[edit]

DB-engines ranking in the #List_of_time_series_databases section is not OK. DB-engines is a commercial platform that accepts money from the database vendor (500 Eur for blog post and 9000 Eur for promotion as a featured product). The list is also not very representative. InfluxDB is ranked #1, Graphite is #3, and Prometheus is #9. This can only happen because InfluxDB is a featured product on DB-engines but Graphite and Prometheus are not. It also contains a lot of things that nobody uses, e.g. SiteWhere and SiriDB.

I can recommend using this survey as a starting point for better list - or maybe some other good survey from academia. DB-engines is not a credible source. It's not clear why some DB ranked X and another ranked Y. There is no methodology behind it. At least it's not published. In it's current state this page is a marketing material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a commercial site such as DB-Engines does not even remotely constitute an unbiased authoritative source. That being said, this is a listing of all TSDB, not just open-source or free ones. Removing legitimate TSDB from the list as "spam links" without regard for the discussion and intent communicated on this page is not constructive. I have restored the previous entries in line with the above conversation. Moving forward we are trying to create a comprehensive list of such databases, not necessarily a list of "the best" or "most well known".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by kamelkev (talk) 22:14, 07 August 2017 (UTC)

And I have removed them again. As long as there are no reasonable independent references any database, commercial, open source or hobby would fulfill the criteria as 'it is a TDSB', and hence could be listed. The notability criteria for lists are lower than for articles themselves, still they need to show a reasonable reason as to why we should list them - that is why we ask for independent secondary sources. If they are not provided (either directly, or through an independent article), they should not be listed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"still they need to show a reasonable reason as to why we should list them" - This is fabricated criteria. Entries need only be identifiable as time series databases, which all of these entries are. I reject that innovative well known time series databases are somehow ill-suited or inappropriate for listing. This debate on this particular article has been going on for quite some time. I look forward to this listing being audited due to the number of conflicting edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by kamelkev (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it is a WP:SPAMHOLE, anything there can be listed - our criteria are independent sourcing for information. --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have yet to see any spam entries create a problem here. Instead I see you and one other person repeatedly taking down legitimate TSDB that meet the necessary criteria. In the case that a non-TSDB were added I would of course agree with you, but that is not what is happening here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by kamelkev (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

They are continuously spammed in, so we discuss inclusion. Do you have independent sourcing for the items that show that they are in fact eligible for inclusion? --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
And your guide is here: Wikipedia:LISTCOMPANY. The three items listed do NOT have an independent source, and have not had that for a long time (longer than what is in the citation needed parameters). I guess we'll be back to the same discussion as always, I'll bring it to a relevant noticeboard. --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Reinsertion of unreliable information[edit]

And we are back at the same edit war. The material was challenged for months for not having sources at all, now it gets reinserted with unreliable sources. User:Kamelkev, you have now been challenged over and ovver, now first get consensus for inclusion on talkpages. See WP:V for more info. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

And for those who want to be sure that the sources are suitable to show the reliability, there is WP:RS/N. Note that material that is challenged, and is not reliably sourced can be removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Beetstra No, we are not back to "the same old edit war". Instead you have continued to act in bad faith by reverting relevant content from more contributors, along with removing citations as well.

It is clear from the edit history that you have removed multiple authoritative references to notable TSDB. The best example of this behavior relates to Facebook's Gorilla TSDB. We can all agree that Facebook is not only notable, but a worldwide innovator on a variety of technologies. Facebook presented their research and development of an extremely novel and proprietary database known as Gorilla in September of 2014 at the 41st International Conference on Very Large DataBases, hosted by VLDB Endowment. It signaled a ground shift in TSDB performance, and paved the way for a large number of open source projects. It is one of the most frequently cited modern TSDB papers. VLDB itself is well respected and peer reviewed - pretty much as good as it gets in terms of reliability for DBs in general.

Yet you removed the entry without comment, along with a reference to the associated journal article which has been cited elsewhere dozens of times. You are unapologetic about it. You don't attempt to work with the community, to communicate intent, or even attempt to improve the entry yourself. Instead you just revert. This is counterproductive, and goes directly against the philosophies that underly this community.

I am not the first person to complain about your behavior with respect to this article either. A number of other contributors have made similar observations regarding your behavior. It is difficult to tell if you are trolling, or are instead unfamiliar with TSDBs as a whole. In either case it would make the most sense for you to take a step back and ask yourself whether you are helping to create a good encyclopedia entry, or if you are stroking your ego.

--User:Kamelkev 14:30, 10 October 2017 (MT)

Look better, 3 of the 5 are still the same as before, including one without any references. We can discuss the suitability of the references for OpenTSDB and Gorilla .. guess where we are. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kamelkev: (forgot to ping) --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I am citing Wikipedia:NNC which states that something does not have to be notable to be mentioned in an article, only to have an article created about it. Citing Wikipedia:SPAMHOLE as a reason why entries should be removed from the list of time series database table is a non sequiter, as that list is not the external links section of the article. I am in consensus with User:Kamelkev that 'Entries need only be identifiable as time series databases', and as such am recommending the list of TSDBs that have been removed be restored. Camel gopher (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Camel gopher: And I have already cited Wikipedia:LISTCOMPANY. The subject does not need to be notable, it needs independent reliable sources to show they are worth mentioning in a list. Second to this, do we realize what we are writing here? Third, I am not the only one who cleans this list, there are at least 3 others who do that. What is the subject we are writing about? Why is this list so much more important than anything that it needs to be an extensive WP:SPAMHOLE. I’ve already started to block editors who keepinserting material without consensus and edit war to do so, Next step will be protection, so we are enforced to discuss and get consensus before inserting. You are well beyond WP:BRD. —Dirk Beetstra T C 06:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

So what does exactly mean "worth" here? Is it enough to show the github README or blog post to show how it is being used and capable as a time series database? @Beetstra: User:Umitanuki