Talk:Time series database

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Databases (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases

Archives

Archive 1

I took it upon myself to add independent and reliable sources to indicate the notability for TimescaleDB, and moved the previous draft back into article namespace. It could probably be included again here now that it has a wikipedia page of its own. Please discuss. riffic (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, I strongly second this. I'll take the initiative and add it to the table. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 03:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey folks -

I'm from QuestDB. We're keen to get listed on this page. We were at one point, but were removed as we didn't have a wikipedia page of our own. We are in the process of attempting to get one, but despite having multiple sources (academic, publication, and otherwise), we haven't had any luck.

Given we're clearly listed on an authoritative site like DB-Engines, ahead of several entrants on this page, I'd suspect we have a strong case. Furthermore, a database like Clickhouse self-describes as column-oriented DBMS (columnar database management system) for online analytical processing (OLAP).

Any guidance or assistance would be appreciated - placement on this page is important for domain authority, increasingly so given the importance of Wikipedia with respect to LLM-scraping. 216.232.198.159 (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you please read our conflict of interest guideline. Wikipedia is not the place to push your own subjects. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I understand - as you can see, I haven't added anything.

What is a reasonable approach to get us listed on a list of time-series database.

Given we're the 6th most popular time-series database according to an authority, I'd be interested in a more helpful answer. 216.232.198.159 (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

First, don’t make it your goal to be listed, wikipedia is not an advertising tool. You could start a draft on the article, but that is really how far you could go and not further regarding QuestDB, as you make very clear you are here only to promote your product.
this and this pretty much disqualifies dbengines as an authoritative source for anything, as has been discussed before on this talkpage, you will need much better than that. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the quick responses and clarity, Dirk.

Our goal is simply to ensure accurate and neutral representation, in line with the standards applied to other databases on this list. There is no mention of advertising or desire to advertise; we want to provide factually correct domain information to people interested in time-series databases. I understand and agree with concerns about promotional content.

My intention is/was to follow the guidance provided in the COI write-up:

> Ethically, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. You have one if you are editing about yourself, or anyone you know personally. You can do so on your user page, or on the talk page of the article you have a conflict of interest with.

I understand and appreciate the hesitation about DB-Engines. Alternatively, QuestDB is cited in several strong technical and academic sources. Would any of these sources suffice? If not, could you clarify what additional level of reliability or prominence is required?

- TechCrunch: Coverage of QuestDB, similar to sources already cited (Venture Beat, Tech Republic).

- RedMonk: Feature on QuestDB —- RedMonk is currently a source for six entries in this list.

- Scholarly sources: QuestDB is cited in Jiang et al.’s study from the National University of Singapore (ArXiv) and exemplified in a study within an IEEE.org paper. There are many others - happy to provide more if needed.

- University coursework: Carnegie Mellon’s Advanced Database Systems course (Slide 39) describes QuestDB as a "Java-based time-series columnar DBMS" and utilizes it in the course work.

This may have changed, but your prior rationale seemed fair to me based on my reading of the terms:

> "...if a reliable source shows proper application of said database by a worth-mentioning third party..." --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Your statement provided additional conditions apart from our own wikipedia page. Given that MrOllie initially removed us, citing the absence of a Wikipedia page, we felt simply asking and being transparent is our best step.

If these are worthy third-parties, they may support our inclusion.

I appreciate your guidance and patience in ensuring we meet Wikipedia’s inclusion standards. 216.232.198.159 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Possibly, though many have been discussed on this talkpage before. A decision was made here that ONLY databases are listed that have an own article and are, in that article, showing that they are a tsdb as a significant part of their operation. In other words, as I said, you can create draft:QuestDB, show its notability, and submit it.
I suggest you to make an account to edit, give it full disclosure of COI. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Dirk, I have done so. This account is fresh, with a full COI disclosure. Forest kavb (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply