Creating a time-series table is easy. However, you will quickly experience several challenges:<p>(1) Table scans to extract just a few columns will be extremely inefficient. It&#x27;s better to create one table per column, each being a pair [time, value].<p>(2) B-tree indexes will be inefficient you for large extracts. For example, aggregating by month for one year will basically not use the indexes. The index will only mostly useful for looking up individual metrics, which is not useful. The new BRIN indexes in 9.5 should help, however.<p>(3) You&#x27;ll end up reaching for something like Postgres&#x27; partitioned tables, which allows you to create child tables that are visible from the top-level table. Each table needs to be sharded by something like the current day, or week, or month.<p>(4) You say you need a proxy to batch data packets. So it&#x27;s queuing, and needs persistence because you don&#x27;t want to lose data if Postgres is lagging behind — your proxy is now a time series database! However, if Postgres is lagging behind, you have a problem. If you&#x27;re writing at 600k&#x2F;s and Postgres can only handle 500k&#x2F;s, you have a never-ending queue.<p>(5) PostgreSQL can only have one master, and its write capability has a fixed ceiling (for HDDs you can calculate the max possible tps from the rotational speed, not sure about SSDs). At some point you&#x27;ll end up sharding (by column, probably) the master into multiple concurrent masters.<p>Much of the point of something like InfluxDB is that there&#x27;s no single bottleneck. You scale linearly by adding more nodes, each of which can write data at top speed. You don&#x27;t need a &quot;proxy&quot; because it&#x27;s designed to perform that very same function.