YMMV but our largest internal dogfooded Timescale instance is 100s of terabytes
https://www.timescale.com/blog/how-we-scaled-postgresql-to-3...
(Post is a year old, IIRC the database is over one petabyte now)
https://www.timescale.com/blog/how-we-scaled-postgresql-to-3...
(Post is a year old, IIRC the database is over one petabyte now)
In general the argument I was originally trying to make is not to never use ClickHouse, I think it's a great product. But if you already are on postgres, it might just be easier to give Timescale a try than to adapt everything to work with ClickHouse right away. There is more to consider here than raw query speed.
And while I'm sure the systems behave differently scale and speed wise, I also wouldn't say Timescale looses straight up, there is situations where Timescale is faster and if it really breaks down for a use-case nothing stops you from still doing the postgres to ClickHouse migration. In the end timescale is just a better postgres, so there is no lock in.