I have multiple sets of scientific data (European Data File files for EEG data) that I am reading in via MNE Python. Each EDF can be read in with a Numpy array that contains the time basis, say 0.00, 0.01, 0.02, 0.03... , and number of channels, each a Numpy array that represent measurements along that time base [-3.00, 4.40, 2.20, 3.40] for channel "FZ-CZ", [1.24, 1.34, 1.00, 3.11] for channel "CZ-PZ". These channels have text labels that are unique within a record, but can vary from record to record.


The non-ideal thought that I had would be to put these in a table in a vanilla Postgres DB, but the channel labels may not be consistent and this would be a lot of rows for a file on the order of minutes with dozens of channels. Perhaps having a "Channel" table where I can keep a running list of all of the channels for all of the files and avoid duplication, but again, this goes against my better judgement.

|        1| FZ-CZ |0.00|-3.00  |
|        1| FZ-CZ |0.01| 4.40  |
|    ...  | ...   |... | ...   |
|        1| CZ-PZ |0.00| 1.24  |
|        1| CZ-PZ |0.01| 1.34  |

What I shudder at even more is the idea of having different tables for different records with a variable number of columns consisting of the voltage values of the channels.

I found an entire thesis (link directly downloads a PDF) on the topic of European Data Files, which seemed to encourage the use of storing these traces as binary data in the table. I don't mind having this as a secondary option, but I'd like to be able to query the data directly.

In searching the site, I found the following 3 questions helpful, and was more swayed to pursue a time series database solution. Design options for time series scientific data

Design for scientific data. Data table with hundreds of columns or data table with a generic value column and hundreds of rows (EAV)?

Recommendation for storage of series of time series


From that bit of research, I decided to pursue something like QuestDB or Timescale or even Amazon Timestream, but it seems like all of these solutions are geared toward a.) Having exact timestamps for each of the datapoints (so like "01/01/2022 00:00"), and b.) incrementally adding data points to a table as measurements are being taken. Otherwise, these solutions seem ideal for storing this type of data.

Aside from turning the relative time points of my data into absolute time stamps, is there a way to get this to work with a time series database? If not, am I "stuck" storing these data as bytes/blobs or even something like JSON in a table or even just keeping the files in an S3 bucket and reading/writing them as needed?

  • I chose this bounty reason because it was closest to what I'm looking for in an answer. However, I will definitely award it to any contribution that gets me a bit further toward figuring this out.
    – jonsca
    Commented Jul 6, 2022 at 5:05
  • What's the problem with your idea of a vanilla postgres? If you want unique entries you can set a unique index on (patientid,channel,time). But I might not understand the question correctly.
    – Flourid
    Commented Jul 6, 2022 at 14:19
  • @Flourid Thanks for your comment! My inclination is the time series databases are specifically geared toward this kind of data and I feel a bit handcuffed by the need to key off of a specific timestamp rather than a relative one. I'm more wondering whether the greater sin is to try to shoehorn it into a traditional table structure in Postgres or embrace what the time series databases have to offer. Part of me is still unsure of what the time series DB is buying me, but it seems like things are going that way technology-wise.
    – jonsca
    Commented Jul 6, 2022 at 15:58
  • If you ignore all of my high-flung details about the signals and just consider this an oscilloscope reading, would a standard table be the best way to keep that.
    – jonsca
    Commented Jul 6, 2022 at 16:00
  • 1
    I don't have much experience with time series DBs, but why not start with postgres and see how good it performs? With the right indexes this should still be fast and you don't have to convert the data. I also checked out Timescale and heres a quote from the documentation: "Hypertables are intended for time-series data, so your table needs a column that holds time values. This can be a timestamp, date, or integer." So no need to make them absolute, just convert them to integers.
    – Flourid
    Commented Jul 6, 2022 at 16:11

1 Answer 1


As per timescale documentation here Timescale also supports integer values:

Hypertables are intended for time-series data, so your table needs a column that holds time values. This can be a timestamp, date, or integer.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.