I have a project involving a web voting system. The current values and related data is stored in several tables. Historical data will be an important aspect of this project so I've also created Audit Tables to which current data will be moved to on a regular basis.
I find this strategy highly inefficient. Even if I only archive data on a daily basis, the number of rows will become huge even if only 1 or 2 users make updates on a given day.
The next alternative I can think of is only storing entries that have changed. This will mean having to build logic to automatically create a view of a given day. This means less stored rows, but considerable complexity.
My final idea is a bit less conventional. Since the historical data will be for reporting purposes, there's no need for web users to have quick access. I'm thinking that my db could have no historical data in it. DB only represents current state. Then, daily, the entire db could be loaded into objects (number of users/data is relatively low) and then serialized to something like XML or JSON. These files could be diffed with the previous day and stored. In fact, SVN could do this for me. When I want the data for a given past day, the system has to retrieve the version for that day and deserialize into objects. This is obviously a costly operation but performance is not so much a concern here. I'm considering using LINQ for this which I think would simplify things. The serialization procedure would have to be pretty organized for the diff to work well.
Which approach would you take?
Thanks
If you're basically wondering how revisions of data are stored in relational databases, then I would look into how wikis do it.
Wikis are all about keeping detailed revision history. They use simple relational databases for storage.
Consider Wikipedia's database schema.
All you've told us about your system is that it involves votes. As long as you store timestamps for when votes were cast you should be able to generate a report describing the vote state tally at any point in time... no?
For example, say I have a system that tallies favorite features (eyes, smile, butt, ...). If I want to know how many votes there were for a particular feature as of a particular date, then I would simply tally all the votes for the feature with a timestamp smaller or equal to that date.
If you want to have a history of other things, then you would follow a similar approach.
I think this is the way it is done.
Have you considered using a real version control system rather than trying to shoehorn a database in its place? I myself am quite partial to git, but there are many options. They all have good support for differences between versions, and they tend to be well optimised for this kind of workload.
Related
I am trying to collect information about temporal databases. I know it is not a modern technology, but I saw that many people who work with databases don't ever know how temporal approach works (I asked some senior programmers and system analysts about temporal databases and they answered something like "Huh?").
I know there are valid-time state tables and transaction-time state tables, along with bitemporal tables. I think that bitemporal tables are way too complex for most usages, because nowadays space is not a problem anymore, and it is more efficient to write the same information on 2 different tables, even if data is redundant. However, I made many searches online trying to see where bitemporal tables are actually used, but I didn't find anything useful.
Are there cases when use of a bitemporal table is really convenient than valid-time and transaction-time state tables separately? Are there real-world examples?
Of course! Take for example, balance sheet data. You will find that this information will change from WD1 (Working Day) to WD x due to late arriving data, adjustments, manual errors and suchlike.
In order to enable repeatable reporting, audit trail and temporal comparisons, a record must be kept of 'old' (invalid?) results. Bitemporal is a great way to manage such updates, especially on an intraday basis. I don't think it's that complicated from a user perspective - just another filter on the where clause.
I admit that the loading process is complicated, but it's not that bad.. I literally just finished writing a generic transform (in SAS, coping with all scenarios for a unique business key) and it took a single day.
Coming back to use cases.. Having both valid (business) time and transaction (version) time on the same table enables:
Repeatable results (having separate tables and corresponding updates could mean getting different results for the same query on two different days)
Comparable results (can answer questions such as "what was the value of X, as we knew it at time Y?")
Rapid results (only dealing with a single table, updated in a transparent and easy-to-query way).
In this sense it is an appropriate structure to use on many, if not all tables in a DWh.
UPDATE 2020: A bitemporal data transform for SAS (both SAS 9 and Viya) is available with Data Controller for SAS. A demo version is available: https://docs.datacontroller.io/dcc-tables/#var_busfrom-var_busto
I think your question raises more issues but it all comes down to how much is enough.
I developed a Bi_Temporal SQL Server engine that supports object versioning and relationship by time as well as all the other beautiful parts of Temporal DB's.
This was because the project needed to be able to be rewound to a place in time and see everything as it was at that time.
I mean everything including data, relationships and User access.
It was the most complex thing I have built but in the end it was so complex no-one else could maintain it, or understand what was happening.
So there was a real world use case and a deliverable.
Is not everyones cup of tea as you have to be able to think in time dimension as well as object version changes as all db's do.
Hope this helps someone. I know the post is old but as it was the first I found when searching Temporal DB's it might be of interest to someone.
I am working on a group project and we are having a discussion about whether to calculate data that we want from an existing database and store it in a new database to query later, or calculate the data from the existing database every time we need to use it. I was wondering what the pros and cons may be for either implementation. Is there any advice you could give?
Edit: Here is more elaborate explanation. We have a large database that has a lot of information being submitted to it daily. We are building a system to track certain points of data. For example, we are getting the count of how many times a user does something that is entered in the database. Using this example (are actual idea is a bit more complex), we are discussing to methods of getting the count of actions per users. The first method is to create a database that stores the users and their action count, and query this database every time we need the action count. The second method would be to query the large database and count the actions per user every time we need to use it. I hope this explanation helps explain. Thoughts?
Edit 2: Two more things that may be useful to point out is 1: I only have read access to the large database and 2: My ultimate goal is to display this information on a web page for end users.
This is a generic question about optimization by caching. The following was my answer to essentially the same question. Even though that question provided a bunch of different details, none of them were specific enough to merit a non-generic answer either:
The more you want to calculate at query time, the more you want views,
calculated columns and stored or user routines. The more you want to
calculate at normalized base update time, the more you want cascades
and triggers. The more you want to calculate at some other (scheduled
or ad hoc) time, the more you use snapshots aka materialized views and
updated denormalized bases. You can combine these. Any time the
database is accessed it can be enabled by and restricted by stored
routines or other api.
Until you can show that they are in adequate, views and calculated
columns are the simplest.
The whole idea of a DBMS is to store a representation of your
application state as the database (which normalization reduces the
redundancy of) and then you query and let the DBMS implement and
optimize calculation of the answer. You haven't presented a reason for
not doing that in the most straightforward way possible.
[sic]
Always make sure an application is reading its own personal ("external") database that is a view of "the" ("conceptual") database so that when you change the implemention of the former (plus the rest of some combined interfact) by the latter (plus the rest of some compbined mechanisms) your applications do not have to change ("logical independence"). Here the applications are your users' and your trackers'.
Ultimately you must instrument and guestimate. When it is worth it you start caching. Preferably as much as possible in terms of high-level notions like views and snapshots and as little as possible in non-DBMS code. One of he benefits of the relational model is that it is easy to describe a strightforward relational interface in terms of another straightforward relational interface. You protect your applications from change by offering an interface that hides secrets of implementation or which of a family of interfaces is the current one.
I'm currently working on a home-automation project which provides the user with the possibility to view their energy usage over a period of time. Currently we request data every 15 minutes and we are expecting around 2000 users for our first big pilot.
My boss is requesting we that we store at least half a year of data. A quick sum leads to estimates of around 35 million records. Though these records are small (around 500bytes each) I'm still wondering whether storing these in our database (Postgres) is a correct decision.
Does anyone have some good reference material and/or advise about how to deal with this amount of information?
For now, 35M records of 0.5K each means 37.5G of data. This fits in a database for your pilot, but you should also think of the next step after the pilot. Your boss will not be happy when the pilot will be a big success and that you will tell him that you cannot add 100.000 users to the system in the next months without redesigning everything. Moreover, what about a new feature for VIP users to request data at each minutes...
This is a complex issue and the choice you make will restrict the evolution of your software.
For the pilot, keep it as simple as possible to get the product out as cheap as possible --> ok for a database. But tell you boss that you cannot open the service like that and that you will have to change things before getting 10.000 new users per week.
One thing for the next release: have many data repositories: one for your user data that is updated frequently, one for you queries/statistics system, ...
You could look at RRD for your next release.
Also keep in mind the update frequency: 2000 users updating data each 15 minutes means 2.2 updates per seconds --> ok; 100.000 users updating data each 5 minutes means 333.3 updates per seconds. I am not sure a simple database can keep up with that, and a single web service server definitely cannot.
We frequently hit tables that look like this. Obviously structure your indexes based on usage (do you read or write a lot, etc), and from the start think about table partitioning based on some high level grouping of the data.
Also, you can implement an archiving idea to keep the live table thin. Historical records are either never touched, or reported on, both of which are no good to live tables in my opinion.
It's worth noting that we have tables around 100m records and we don't perceive there to be a performance problem. A lot of these performance improvements can be made with little pain afterwards, so you could always start with a common-sense solution and tune only when performance is proven to be poor.
With appropriate indexes to avoid slow queries, I wouldn't expect any decent RDBMS to struggle with that kind of dataset. Lots of people are using PostgreSQL to handle far more data than that.
It's what databases are made for :)
First of all, I would suggest that you make a performance test - write a program that generates test entries that corresponds to the number of entries you'll see over half a year, insert them and check results to see if query times are satisfactory. If not, try indexing as suggested by other answers. It is, btw, also worth trying write performance to ensure that you can actually insert the amount of data you're generating in 15 minutes in.. 15 minutes or less.
Making a test will avoid the mother of all problems - assumptions :-)
Also think about production performance - your pilot will have 2000 users - will your production environment have 4000 users or 200000 users in a year or two?
If we're talking a really big environment, you need to think about a solution that allows you to scale out by adding more nodes instead of relying on always being able to add more CPU, disk and memory to a single machine. You can either do this in your application by keeping track on which out of multiple database machines is hosting details for a specific user, or you can use one of the Postgresql clustering methods, or you could go a completely different path - the NoSQL approach, where you walk away completely from RDBMS and use systems which are built to scale horizontally.
There are a number of such systems. I only have personal experience of Cassandra. You have to think completely different compared to what you're used to from the RDBMS world which is something of a challenge - think more about how you want
to access the data rather than how to store it. For your example, I think storing the data with the user-id as key and then add a column with the column name being the timestamp and the column value being your data for that timestamp would make sense. You can then ask for slices of those columns for example for graphing results in a Web UI - Cassandra has good enough response times for UI applications.
The upside of investing time in learning and using a nosql system is that when you need more space - you just add a new node. Same thing if you need more write performance, or more read performance.
Are you not better off not keeping individual samples for the full period? You could possibly implement some sort of consolidation mechanism, which concatenates weekly/monthly samples into one record. And run said consolidation on a schedule.
You decision has to depend on the type of queries you need to be able to run on the database.
There are lots of techniques to handle this problem. you will only get performance if you touch minimum number of records. in your case you can use following techniques.
Try to keep old data in separate table here your can use table partitioning or can use a different kind of approach where you can store your old data in file system and can serve them directly from your application without connecting to database, this way your database will be free. I am doing this for one of my project and it already has more than 50GB of data but it is running very smoothly.
Try to index table columns but be careful as it will affect your insertion speed.
Try batch processing for your insertion or select queries. you can handle this issue very smartly here.
Example: suppose you are getting request to insert record in any table after every 1 second then you make a mechanism where you process this request in batch of 5 record in this way you will hit your database after 5 second which is much better. Yes, you can make users to wait for 5 second to wait for their record inserted like in Gmail where you send email and it ask you to wait/processing. for select you can put your resultset periodically in file system and can serve them directly to user without touching database like most stock market data company do.
You can also use some ORM like Hibernate. They will use some caching techniques to boost speed of your data.
For any further query you can mail me on ranjeet1985#gmail.com
I am in the early stages of developing a database-driven system and the largest part of the system revolves around an inheritance type of relationship. There is a parent entity with about 10 columns and there will be about 10 child entities inheriting from the parent. Each child entity will have about 10 columns. I thought it made sense to give the parent entity its own table and give each of the children their own tables - a table-per-subclass structure.
Today, my users requested to see the structure of the system I created. They balked at the idea of the table-per-subclass structure. They would prefer one big ~100 column table because it would be easier for them to perform their own custom queries.
Should I consider denormalizing the database for the sake of the users?
Absolutely not. You can always create a view later to show them what they want to see.
They are effectively asking for a report.
You could give them access to a view containing all the fields they require... that way you don't mess up your data model.
No. Structure the data properly and if the users need the a denormalized view of the data create it as a VIEW in the database.
Alternatively, consider that perhaps an RDBMS is not the appropriate storage tool for this project.
They are the users and not the programmers of the system for a reason. Provide a separate interface for their queries. Power users like this can both be helpful and a pain to deal with. Just explain you need the database designed a certain way so you can do your job, period. Once that is accomplished you and provide other means to make querying easier.
What do they know!? You could argue that users shouldn't even be having direct access to a database in the first place.
Doing that leaves you open to massive performance issues, just because a couple of users are running ridiculous queries.
How about if you created a VIEW in the format your users wanted while still maintaining a properly normalized table?
Aside from a lot of the technical reasons for or against your users' proposition, you need to be on same page in communicating the consequences of various scenarious and (more importantly) the costs of those consequences. If the users are your clients and they are paying you to do a job, explain that their awful "proposed" ideas may cost them more money in development time, additional hardware resources, etc.
Hopefully you can explain it in such a way that shows your expertise and why your idea is a much better value to your users in the long run.
As everyone more or less mentioned, that way lies madness, and you can always build a view.
If you just can't get them to come around on this point, consider showing them this thread and the number of pros who weighed in saying that the users are meddling with things that they don't fully understand, and the impact will be an undermined foundation.
A big part of the developer's craft is the feel for what won't work out long term, and the rules of normalization are almost canonical in that respect. There are situations where you need to denormalize (data warehouses, etc) but this doesn't sound like one of them!
It also sounds as though you may have a particularly troubling brand of user on your hand -- the amatuer developer who thinks they could do your job better themselves if only they had the time. This may or may not help, but I've found that those types respond well to presentation -- a few times now I've found that if I dress sharp and show a little bit of force in my personality, it helps them feel like I'm an expert and prevents a bunch of problems before they start.
I would strongly recommend coming up with an answer that doesn't involve someone running direct reports against your database. The moment that happens, your DB structure is set in stone and you can basically consider it legacy.
A view is a good start, but later on you'll probably want to structure this as an export, to decouple further. Of course, then you'll encounter someone who wants "real time" data. Proper business analysis usually reveals this to be unnecessary. Actual real time requirements are not best handled through reporting systems.
Just to be clear: I'd personally favour the table per subclass approach, but I don't think it's actually as big an issue as the direct reporting off transaction tables is going to be.
I would opt for a view (as others have suggested) or an inline table-valued function (the benefits of this is you require parameters - like an date range or a customer account - which can help to stop users from querying without any limits on the problem space) first. An inline TVF is really a parametrized view and is far closer to a view in terms of how the engine treats them than it is to a multi-statement table valued function or a scalar function, which can perform incredibly poorly.
However, in some cases, this can impact production performance if the view is complex or intensive. With poorly written ad hoc user queries, it can also cause locks to persist longer or be escalated further than they would on a better built query. It is also possible for users to misinterpret an E-R data model and produce multiplied numbers in cases where there are many-to-one or many-to-many relationships. The next option might be to materialize these views with indexes or make tables and keep them updated, which gets us closer to my next option...
So, given those drawbacks of the view option and already thinking of mitigating it by starting to make copies of data, the next option I would consider is to have a separate read-only (for these users) version of the data which is structured differently. Typically, I would first look at a Kimball-style star schema. You do not need to have a full-fledged time-consistent data warehouse. Of course, that's an option, but you could simply keep a reporting model up to date with data. Star-schemas are a special form of denormalization and are particularly good for numerical reporting, and a given star should not be able to be abused by users accidentally. You can keep the star up to date in a number of ways, including triggers, scheduled jobs, etc. They can be very fast for reporting needs and run on the same production installation - perhaps on a separate instance if not just a separate database.
Although such a solution may require you to effectively more than double your storage requirements, when compared with other practices it might be a really good option if you understand your data well and don't mind having two models - one for transactions and one for analysis (note that you will already start to have this logical separation anyway with the use of a the simplest first option of view).
Some architects will often double their servers and use the SAME model with some kind of replication in order to provide a reporting server which is indexed more heavily or differently. Such a second server doesn't impact production transactions with reporting requirements and can be kept up to date fairly easily. There will only be one model, but of course, this has the same usability problems with allowing users ad hoc access to the underlying model only, without the performance affects, since they get their own playground.
There are a lot of ways to skin these cats. Good luck.
The customer is always right. However, the customer is likely to back down when you convert their requirement into dollars and cents. A 100 column table will require extra dev time to write the code that does what the database would do automatically with the proper implementation. Further, their support costs will be higher since more code means more problems and lower ease of debugging.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that both solutions sound like poor approximations of the actual data. There's a reason that object-oriented programming languages don't tend to be implemented with either of these data models, and it's not because Codd's 1970 ideas about relations were the ideal system for storing and querying object-oriented data structures. :-)
Remember that SQL was originally designed as a user interface language (that's why it looks vaguely like English and not at all like other languages of that era: Algol, C, APL, Prolog). The only reasons I've heard for not exposing a SQL database to users today are security (they could take down the server!) and usability (who wants to write SQL when you can clicky clicky?), but if it's their server and they want to, then why not let them?
Given that "the largest part of the system revolves around an inheritance type of relationship", then I'd seriously consider a database that lets me represent that natively, either Postgres (if SQL is important) or a native object database (which are awesome to work with, if you don't need SQL compatibility).
Finally, remember that every engineering decision is a tradeoff. By "sticking to your guns" (as somebody else proposed), you're implicitly saying the value of your users' desires are zero. Don't ask SO for a correct answer to this, because we don't know what your users want to do with your data (or even what your data is, or who your users are). Go tell them why you want a many-tables solution, and then work out a solution with them that's acceptable to both of you.
You've implemented Class Table Inheritance and they're asking for Single Table Inheritance. Both designs are valid in certain situations.
You might want to get a copy of Martin Fowler's Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture to read more about the advantages and disadvantages of each design. That book is a classic reference to have on your bookshelf, in any case.
I was reading about temporal databases and it seems they have built in time aspects. I wonder why would we need such a model?
How different is it from a normal RDBMS? Can't we have a normal database i.e. RDBMS and say have a trigger which associates a time stamp with each transaction that happens? May be there would be a performance hit. But I'm still skeptical on temporal databases having a strong case in the market.
Does any of the present databases support such a feature?
Consider your appointment/journal diary - it goes from Jan 1st to Dec 31st. Now we can query the diary for appointments/journal entries on any day. This ordering is called the valid time. However, appointments/entries are not usually inserted in order.
Suppose I would like to know what appointments/entries were in my diary on April 4th. That is, all the records that existed in my diary on April 4th. This is the transaction time.
Given that appointments/entries can be created and deleted etc. A typical record has a beginning and end valid time that covers the period of the entry and a beginning and end transaction time that indicates the period during which the entry appeared in the diary.
This arrangement is necessary when the diary may undergo historical revision. Suppose on April 5th I realise that the appointment I had on Feb 14th actually occurred on February 12th i.e. I discover an error in my diary - I can correct the error so that the valid time picture is corrected, but now, my query of what was in the diary on April 4th would be wrong, UNLESS, the transaction times for appointments/entries are also stored. In that case if I query my diary as of April 4th it will show an appointment existed on February 14th but if I query as of April 6th it would show an appointment on February 12th.
This time travel feature of a temporal database makes it possible to record information about how errors are corrected in a database. This is necessary for a true audit picture of data that records when revisions were made and allows queries relating to how data have been revised over
time.
Most business information should be stored in this bitemporal scheme in order to provide a true audit record and to maximise business intelligence - hence the need for support in a relational database. Notice that each data item occupies a (possibly unbounded) square in the two dimensional time model which is why people often use a GIST index to implement bitemporal indexing. The problem here is that a GIST index is really designed for geographic data and the requirements for temporal data are somewhat different.
PostgreSQL 9.0 exclusion constraints should provide new ways of organising temporal data e.g. transaction and valid time PERIODs should not overlap for the same tuple.
A temporal database efficiently stores a time series of data, typically by having some fixed timescale (such as seconds or even milliseconds) and then storing only changes in the measured data. A timestamp in an RDBMS is a discretely stored value for each measurement, which is very inefficient. A temporal database is often used in real-time monitoring applications like SCADA. A well-established system is the PI database from OSISoft (http://www.osisoft.com/).
As I understand it (and over-simplifying enormously), a temporal database records facts about when the data was valid as well as the the data itself, and permits you to query on the temporal aspects. You end up dealing with 'valid time' and 'transaction time' tables, or 'bitemporal tables' involving both 'valid time' and 'transaction time' aspects. You should consider reading either of these two books:
Darwen, Date and Lorentzos "Temporal Data and the Relational Model" (out of print),
and (at a radically different extreme) "Developing Time-Oriented Database Applications in SQL", Richard T. Snodgrass, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, July, 1999, 504+xxiii pages, ISBN 1-55860-436-7. That is out of print but available as PDF on his web site at cs.arizona.edu (so a Google search makes it pretty easy to find).
Temporal databases are often used in the financial services industry. One reason is that you are rarely (if ever) allowed to delete any data, so ValidFrom - ValidTo type fields on records are used to provide an indication of when a record was correct.
Besides "what new things can I do with it", it might be useful to consider "what old things does it unify?". The temporal database represents a particular generalization of the "normal" SQL database. As such, it may give you a unified solution to problems that previously appeared unrelated. For example:
Web Concurrency When your database has a web UI that lets multiple users perform standard Create/Update/Delete (CRUD) modifications, you have to face the concurrent web changes problem. Basically, you need to check that an incoming data modification is not affecting any records that have changed since that user last saw those records. But if you have a temporal database, it quite possibly already associates something like a "revision ID" with each record (due to the difficulty of making timestamps unique and monotonically ascending). If so, then that becomes the natural, "already built-in" mechanism for preventing the clobbering of other users' data during database updates.
Legal/Tax Records The legal system (including taxes) places rather more emphasis on historical data than most programmers do. Thus, you will often find advice about schemas for invoices and such that warns you to beware of deleting records or normalizing in a natural way--which can lead to an inability to answer basic legal questions like "Forget their current address, what address did you mail this invoice to in 2001?" With a temporal framework base, all the machinations to those problems (they usually are halfway steps to having a temporal database) go away. You just use the most natural schema, and delete when it make sense, knowing that you can always go back and answer historical questions accurately.
On the other hand, the temporal model itself is half-way to complete revision control, which could inspire further applications. For example, suppose you roll your own temporal facility on top of SQL and allow branching, as in revision control systems. Even limited branching could make it easy to offer "sandboxing" -- the ability to play with and modify the database with abandon without causing any visible changes to other users. That makes it easy to supply highly realistic user training on a complex database.
Simple branching with a simple merge facility could also simplify some common workflow problems. For example, a non-profit might have volunteers or low-paid workers doing data entry. Giving each worker their own branch could make it easy to allow a supervisor to review their work or enhance it (e.g., de-duplification) before merging it into the main branch where it would become visible to "normal" users. Branches could also simplify permissions. If a user is only granted permission to use/see their unique branch, you don't have to worry about preventing every possible unwanted modification; you'll only merge the changes that make sense anyway.
Apart from reading the Wikipedia article? A database that maintains an "audit log" or similar transaction log will have some properties of being "temporal". If you need answers to questions about who did what to whom and when then you've got a good candidate for a temporal database.
You can imagine a simple temporal database that just logs your GPS location every few seconds. The opportunities for compressing this data is great, a normal database you would need to store a timestamp for every row. If you have a great deal of throughput required, knowing the data is temporal and that updates and deletes to a row will never be required permits the program to drop a lot of the complexity inherit in a typical RDBMS.
Despite this, temporal data is usually just stored in a normal RDBMS. PostgreSQL, for example has some temporal extensions, which makes this a little easier.
Two reasons come to mind:
Some are optimized for insert and read only and can offer dramatic perf improvements
Some have better understandings of time than traditional SQL - allowing for grouping operations by second, minute, hour, etc
Just an update, Temporal database is coming to SQL Server 2016.
To clear all your doubts why one need a Temporal Database, rather than configuring with custom methods, and how efficiently & seamlessly SQL Server configures it for you, check the in-depth video and demo on Channel9.msdn here: https://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Data-Exposed/Temporal-in-SQL-Server-2016
MSDN link: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn935015(v=sql.130).aspx
Currently with the CTP2 (beta 2) release of SQL Server 2016 you can play with it.
Check this video on how to use Temporal Tables in SQL Server 2016.
My understanding of temporal databases is that are geared towards storing certain types of temporal information. You could simulate that with a standard RDBMS, but by using a database that supports it you have built-in idioms for a lot of concepts and the query language might be optimized for these sort of queries.
To me this is a little like working with a GIS-specific database rather than an RDBMS. While you could shove coordinates in a run-of-the-mill RDBMS, having the appropriate representations (e.g., via grid files) may be faster, and having SQL primitives for things like topology is useful.
There are academic databases and some commercial ones. Timecenter has some links.
Another example of where a temporal database is useful is where data changes over time. I spent a few years working for an electricity retailer where we stored meter readings for 30 minute blocks of time. Those meter readings could be revised at any point but we still needed to be able to look back at the history of changes for the readings.
We therefore had the latest reading (our 'current understanding' of the consumption for the 30 minutes) but could look back at our historic understanding of the consumption. When you've got data that can be adjusted in such a way temporal databases work well.
(Having said that, we hand carved it in SQL, but it was a fair while ago. Wouldn't make that decision these days.)