Then effectively your insert rate is between 16 and 60 per second, sure, you don't really need a sophisticated partitioning or log structured DB. Native static partitioning would give you a decent speedup without much thought.
It's intro computer science, if you have a tree structure and fill it up, you spend a lot of time in the corners of theta notation. Timescale uses tightly integrated partitioning on the time axis to deal with write performance and aging data out. Other popular TSDBs are plays on log structured merge trees etc
Reducing "Other TSDBs" to log-structured-merge trees is misleading. Any large-scale TSDB has something sophisticated underneath and LSM is often just one tiny part of that. I would argue (as most do) that any TSDB "simply used an LSM" it would be doomed at any scale over time.
There was no reduction, it was intended as a pointer to one data structure some TSDBs are using underneath. I would bold and highlight the "etc" present there for you if the markup allowed it.
I hope a reader would become interested in what an LSM tree is (and perhaps as importantly isn't)
It's intro computer science, if you have a tree structure and fill it up, you spend a lot of time in the corners of theta notation. Timescale uses tightly integrated partitioning on the time axis to deal with write performance and aging data out. Other popular TSDBs are plays on log structured merge trees etc