TimescaleDB vs InfluxDB: Relational vs Tagset Architecture Trade-offs

Relational TSDB Architecture
Relational TSDBs extend traditional SQL databases with automatic time partitioning while preserving ACID guarantees (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability for reliable transactions), joins, and SQL analytics. Data lives in time-partitioned tables (called hypertables or chunks) that the query planner automatically prunes. You get full SQL compatibility: complex window functions, CTEs (Common Table Expressions for named subqueries), and joins with reference tables.
Complex analytical queries involving joins or multi-dimensional filters return results in 10-100ms using composite indexes and constraint exclusion. The trade-off: schema management overhead and slightly lower peak insert rates compared to schemaless systems.
Tagset TSDB Architecture
Purpose-built TSDBs use a schemaless tagset model: data points have a measurement name, indexed tags (key-value dimensions like region=us-east, host=server1), unindexed fields (the actual values like cpu_usage=72.5), and a timestamp. No schema declaration needed; new tags appear automatically on first write.
Separate components handle ingest, query, and compaction, scaling independently. Simple recent time-window queries shine with low-millisecond latency optimized for dashboard loads. However, multi-dimensional filters require scanning series metadata, taking seconds to tens of seconds on complex queries.
Cardinality Behavior
At low cardinality (100 devices, 1 metric), tagset systems achieve ~2x faster inserts via optimized in-memory buffering. As dimensions grow (thousands of unique tag combinations), relational catches up. At 100,000+ unique series, tagset systems risk timeouts and OOM (out-of-memory) without careful batch sizing, while relational with predictable indexing remains stable.
Key Trade-off: Relational TSDBs excel at complex analytics, joins, and high cardinality stability. Tagset TSDBs excel at schema-free ingest and low-latency recent queries. Choose based on query complexity and cardinality profile.

💡 Key Takeaways

✓Relational TSDBs provide full SQL including joins, window functions, and CTEs while auto-partitioning by time with constraint exclusion for pruning

✓Tagset model uses schemaless tags (indexed dimensions) and fields (unindexed values); new tags appear automatically without schema changes

✓Complex analytical queries: relational returns in 10-100ms using composite indexes; tagset takes seconds scanning series metadata

✓Simple recent queries: tagset achieves low-millisecond latency with optimized in-memory buffering; relational adds index overhead

✓At 100,000+ unique series, tagset systems risk OOM without careful management; relational with predictable indexing remains stable

✓Relational requires schema management but gains mature tooling and ecosystem; tagset eliminates ops but limits complex analytics

📌 Interview Tips

1Choose relational when: correlating time series with business entities via joins (e.g., metrics joined with customer table), running window functions, or needing strong consistency.

2Choose tagset when: schemaless ingestion is critical (many teams adding metrics independently), writes exceed 1M points/sec, and queries are simple recent time windows.

3Cardinality crossover: at 100 devices x 1 metric = 100 series, tagset is 2x faster. At 1000 devices x 100 metrics = 100K series, relational catches up and stays stable.

← Back to Time-Series Databases (InfluxDB, TimescaleDB) Overview