Hi, So as far as I understood things: If you write data into a tree model storage, the you can only access it with tree queries. If you write into table model, then you can only use table queries. So I would stick to „Model“.
If it was possible to write to the storage using tree and/or table model and you could query data using either a tree syntax or a table syntax, then I’d call it „Mode“. Mode for my implies I get to chose: "How do I want to access this? Tree or Table mode?“ … Modes can be switched, models can’t. Just my 5ct on this 😉 Chris Von: Pengcheng Zheng <[email protected]> Datum: Montag, 9. Februar 2026 um 10:14 An: [email protected] <[email protected]> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Terminology choice: "Table Model" vs. "Table Mode" (and Tree) Hi Yuan, Thanks for starting this thoughtful discussion — I find the distinction very valuable. I’d like to add one perspective from an engineering and user-facing angle. While I fully agree that Tree and Table represent two different logical data models at the conceptual schema level, in IoTDB they are built on the same physical storage (TsFile) and operate on the same underlying time-series data. From a user’s point of view, this often feels less like “choosing a model” and more like switching between two interoperable ways of accessing and reasoning about the same data. One possible way to articulate this externally could be: “IoTDB provides two logical data models — a Tree-oriented model and a Table-oriented model — exposed to users as two interchangeable access modes over the same underlying time-series data.” I’m curious how others see this trade-off between theoretical precision and user perception, especially in comparison with how “multi-model” is used elsewhere. Looking forward to more thoughts. Best regards, Pengcheng Am Fr., 6. Feb. 2026 um 15:48 Uhr schrieb Yuan Tian <[email protected] >: > *Hi all,* > > I would like to initiate a discussion regarding the official English > terminology for our dual-modeling capabilities in Apache IoTDB. > Specifically, should we use *"Table Model"* and *"Tree Model"*, or *"Table > Mode"* and *"Tree Mode"*? > > After some consideration, I highly recommend adopting *"Table Model"* > and *"Tree > Model"*. Here is the reasoning based on classic database architecture: > > As we know, the standard *three-level schema architecture in database > theory* consists of the External Schema (User Level), Conceptual Schema > (Logical/Model Level), and Internal Schema (Physical Level). This structure > ensures data independence by isolating user views from physical storage. > > In the context of IoTDB: > > - > > *Unified Physical Layer:* Both "Tree" and "Table" share the same > underlying physical storage format (TsFile). > - > > *Conceptual Distinction:* The primary difference lies in the *Conceptual > Schema*—the way we model the data. Each modeling approach carries its > own unique logic, constraints, and mappings. > - > > *External Impact:* These different conceptual models further determine > their respective External Schemas and query syntaxes. > > If we were to use "Mode," it might imply a superficial switch in "External > Schema" or "syntax style." However, *"Model"* accurately reflects that we > are providing two different logical frameworks for data representation on > top of a unified storage engine. > > I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Do you agree with using > "Model," or do you see any advantages to using "Mode"? > > *Best regards,* > > Yuan Tian >
