@zX41ZdbW@ - Thanks for pointing out the various benchmarks that have been run by other companies between Clickhouse and TimescaleDB using TSBS[1]. As we mentioned, we'll dig deeper into a similar benchmark with much more detail than any of those examples in an upcoming blog post.
One notable omission on all of the benchmarks that we've seen is that none of them enable TimescaleDB compression (which also transforms row-oriented data into a columnar-type format). In our detailed benchmarking, queries on compressed columnar data in Timescale outperformed Clickhouse in most queries, particularly as cardinality increases, often by 5x or more. And with compression of 90% or more, storage is often comparable. (Again, blog post coming soon - we are just making sure our results are accurate before rushing to publish.)
The beauty of TimescaleDB columnar compression model is that it allows the user to decide when their workload can benefit from deep/narrow queries of data that doesn't change often (although it can still be modified just like regular row data), verses shallow/wide queries for things like inserting data and near-time queries.
It's a hybrid model that provides a lot of flexibility for users AND significantly improves the performance of historical queries. So yes, we do agree that columnar storage is a huge performance win for many types of queries.
And of course, with TimescaleDB, one also gets all of the benefits of PostgreSQL and its vibrant ecosystem.
Can't wait to share the details in the coming weeks!