When we think of how some property (e.g. your address or
salary) changes over time, we usually think of it as a linear sequence of
changes. But surprisingly often, it can get rather more tangled than that,
in a way that can often confuse computerized records.
I can illustrate all this with a simple example:
- We are handling payroll for our company. We run the payroll for our
company on February 25, and our employee Sally is paid according to her
monthly salary of $6000.
- On March 15 we get an apologetic letter from HR telling us that, on
February 15th, Sally got a pay raise to $6500.
So what should we answer when we’re asked what Sally’s salary was on
February 25? In one sense we should answer $6500, since we know now that that
was the rate. But often we cannot ignore that on Feb 25 we thought the salary
was $6000, after all that’s when we ran payroll. We printed a check, sent it to
her, and she cashed it. These all occurred based on the amount that her salary
was. If the tax authorities asked us for her salary on Feb 25, this becomes
The Two Dimensions
I find I can make sense of much of this tangle by thinking of time as
two dimensions – hence the term “bitemporal”. One dimension is the
actual history of Sally’s salary, which I’ll illustrate by sampling on the
25th of each month, since that’s when payroll runs.
| date|| salary|
| Jan 25|| 6000|
| Feb 25|| 6500|
| Mar 25|| 6500|
The second dimension comes in as we ask what did we think Sally’s salary
history was on February 25? On February 25th we hadn’t got the letter from
HR, so we thought her salary was always $6000. There is a difference between
the actual history, and our record of the history. We can show this by
adding new dates to our table
| record date|| actual date|| salary|
| Jan 25|| Jan 25|| 6000|
| Feb 25|| Jan 25|| 6000|
| Mar 25|| Jan 25|| 6000|
| Feb 25|| Feb 25|| 6000|
| Mar 25|| Feb 25|| 6500|
| Mar 25|| Mar 25|| 6500|
I’m using the terms actual and record history for the
two dimensions. You may also hear people using the terms valid, or
effective (for actual) and transaction (for record).
I read the rows of this table by saying something like “on Mar 25th, we
thought Sally’s salary on Feb 25th was $6500”.
Using this way of thinking, I can look at the earlier table of Sally’s actual history,
and say that more precisely it’s Sally’s actual history as known (recorded)
on March 25.
In programming terms, If I want to know Sally’s
salary, and I have no history, then I can get it with something like
sally.salary. To add support for (actual) history I need to use
sally.salaryAt('2021-02-25'). In a bitemporal world I need
Another way to visualize this is to make a plot where the x axis is
actual time and the y axis is record time. I shade the region according to the
salary level. (The shape of the plot is triangular since there’s we’re not
trying to record future values.)
With this plot, I can make a table for how actual history changes with
each run of payroll on the 25th. We see that the Feb 25 payroll ran at a
time when Sally had no raise, but when the Mar 25 payroll ran, the raise was
Changing the Retroactive Change
Now consider another communication from HR
- April 5: Sorry there was an typo in our previous email. Sally’s raise
on Feb 15 was to $6400. Sorry for the inconvenience.
This is the kind of change that makes angels weep. But when we think of
it terms of bitemporal history, it’s not that difficult to understand.
Here’s the plot with this new bit of information.
The horizontal lines, used for the payrols, represent the actual history
at a certain point in record time. On April 25 we know Sally’s salary
increased from $6000 to $6400 on February 15. In that perspective, we never
see Sally’s $6500 salary because it was never true.
Looking at the diagram, what does a vertical line mean?
This represents our knowledge of the value at a certain date. The table
indicates the recorded salary for February 25th, as our knowledge
changed over time.
Bitemporal history is a useful way of framing history when we have to deal with
retroactive changes. However we don’t see it used that often, partly
because many people don’t know about the technique, but also because we
can often get away without it.
One way to avoid it is to not support retroactive changes. If your
insurance company says any changes become in force when they receive your
letter – then that’s a way of forcing actual time to match record
Retroactive changes are a problem when actions are based on a
past state that’s retroactively changed, such as a salary check being sent
out based on a now-updated salary level. If we are merely recording a
history, then we don’t have to worry about it changing retroactively – we
essentially ignore record history and only record actual history. We may
do that even when we do have invariant action if the action is recorded in
such a way that it records any necessary input data. So the payroll for
Sally could record her salary at the time it issues the check, and that’s
enough for audit purposes. In that situation we can get away with only the
actual history of her salary. The record history is then buried inside her
We may also get away with only actual history if any retroactive
changes are made before an action occurs. If we had learned of Sally’s
salary change on February 24th, we could adjust her record without running
into before the payroll action relied on the incorrect figure.
If we can avoid using bitemporal history, then that’s usually
preferable as it does complicate a system quite significantly. However
when have to deal with discrepancies between actual and record history,
usually due to retroactive updates, then we need to bite the bullet. One
of the hardest parts of this is educating users on how bitemporal history
works. Most people don’t think of a historical record as something that
changes, let alone of the two dimensions of record and actual history.
In a simple world a history is append-only. If communication is perfect
and instantaneous than all new information is learned immediately by every
interested actor. We can then just treat history as something we add to as
new events occur in the world.
Bitemporal history is a way of coming to terms that communication is
neither perfect nor instantaneous. Actual history is no longer
append-only, we go back and make retroactive changes. However record
history itself is append only. We don’t change what we thought we
knew about Sally’s salary on Feb 25. We just append the later knowledge we
gained. By layering an append-only record history over the actual history, we
allow the actual history to be modified while creating a reliable history
of its modifications.
Consequences of Retroactive Changes
Bitemporal history is a mechanism that allows us to track how a value
changes, and it can be extremely helpful to be able ask
sally.salaryAt(actualDate, recordDate). But retroactive
changes do more than just adjust the historical record. As the expert
says: “People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect,
but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint – it’s
more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff.” If we’ve paid Sally $6000 when we should have paid her
$6400, then we need to make it right. At the very least that means getting
more in a later paycheck, but it may also lead to other consequences.
Maybe the higher payment means she should have crossed some important
threshold a month earlier, maybe there are tax implications.
Bitemporal history alone isn’t enough to figure out these dependent
effects are, that demands a set of additional mechanisms, which are beyond
the scope of this pattern. One measure is to create a parallel model,
which captures the state of the world as it should have been with the
correct salary, and use this to figure out the compensating changes.
Bitemporal history can be useful element
for these kinds of measures, but only unravels part of that big ball.
Perspectives for Record Time
My example above for record time uses dates to capture our changing
understanding of actual history. But the way we capture record history can
be more involved than that.
To make everything easier to follow above, I sampled the history on the
payroll dates. But a better representation of a history is to use date
ranges, Here’s a table to cover 2021
| record dates|| actual dates|| salary|
| Jan 1 – Feb 14|| Jan 1 – Dec 31|| 6000|
| Mar 15 – Apr 4|| Jan 1 – Feb 14|| 6000|
| Mar 15 – Apr 4|| Feb 15 – Dec 31|| 6500|
| Apr 5 – Dec 31|| Jan 1 – Feb 14|| 6000|
| Apr 5 – Dec 31|| Feb 15 – Dec 31|| 6400|
We can think of Sally’s salary being recorded with a combination of two
keys, the actual key (a date range) and the record key (also a date
range). But our notion of record key can be more complicated than that.
One obvious case is that different agents can have different record
histories. This is clearly the case for Sally, it took time to get
messages from the HR department to the Payroll department, so the record
times for those modifications to actual history will differ between the
| department|| record dates|| actual dates|| salary|
| HR|| Jan 1 – Feb 14|| Jan 1 – Dec 31|| 6000|
| HR|| Feb 15 – Dec 31|| Jan 1 – Feb 14|| 6000|
| HR|| Feb 15 – Dec 31|| Feb 15 – Dec 31|| 6400|
| Payroll|| Jan 1 – Mar 14|| Jan 1 – Dec 31|| 6000|
| Payroll|| Mar 15 – Apr 4|| Jan 1 – Feb 14|| 6000|
| Payroll|| Mar 15 – Apr 4|| Feb 15 – Dec 31|| 6500|
| Payroll|| Apr 5 – Dec 31|| Jan 1 – Feb 14|| 6000|
| Payroll|| Apr 5 – Dec 31|| Feb 15 – Dec 31|| 6400|
Anything that can record a history will have its own record
timestamps for when it learns information. Depending on that data we may
say that an enterprise will choose a certain agent to be the defining
agent for recording certain kinds of data. But agents will cross lines of
authority – however big the company, it won’t change the recording dates of
the tax authorities it deals with. A lot of effort goes into sorting out
problems caused by different agents learning the same facts at different
We can generalize what’s happening here by combining the notion of the
department and record date range into a single concept of a perspective.
Thus we’d say something like “according to HR’s perspective on Feb 25,
Sally’s salary was $6400”. In a table form, we might visualize it like
| perspective|| actual dates|| salary|
| HR, Jan 1 – Feb 14|| Jan 1 – Dec 31|| 6000|
| HR, Jan 15 – Dec 31|| Jan 1 – Feb 14|| 6000|
| HR, Feb 15 – Dec 31|| Feb 15 – Dec 31|| 6400|
| Payroll, Jan 1 – Mar 14|| Jan 1 – Dec 31|| 6000|
| Payroll, Mar 15 – Apr 4|| Jan 1 – Feb 14|| 6000|
| Payroll, Mar 15 – Apr 4|| Feb 15 – Dec 31|| 6500|
| Payroll, Apr 5 – Dec 31|| Jan 1 – Feb 14|| 6000|
| Payroll, Apr 5 – Dec 31|| Feb 15 – Dec 31|| 6400|
What does this collapse into a single perspective concept give us? It
allows us to think about what other perspectives might be. One example is
to consider alternative perspectives. We could create a perspective where
we remove individual raises (such as Sally’s on Feb 15) and give
every employee a salary raise of 10% on March 1st. That would lead to a new
record-time dimension for Sally’s salary.
| perspective|| actual dates|| salary|
| real world|| Jan 1 – Feb 14|| 6000|
| real world|| Feb 15 – Dec 31|| 6400|
| with global raise|| Jan 1 – Feb 28|| 6000|
| with global-raise|| Mar 1 – Dec 31|| 6600|
This generalization of the notion of record time says that we can layer
multiple perspectives over an actual history, using essentially the same
mechanism to reason about retroactive changes and alternative histories.
Putting many perspective dimensions over a history isn’t something
that’s widely useful, even compared to bitemporal history. But I find it a
helpful way to think about these kinds of situations: reasoning about
alternative scenarios, either historically, or in the future.
Storing and Processing Bitemporal Histories
Adding history to data increases complexity. In a bitemporal world I
need two date parameters to access Sally’s salary –
sally.salaryAt('2021-02-25', '2021-03-25'). We can simplify
access by defaults, if we treat the default for record time as today, then
processing that only needs current record time can ignore the bitemporal
Simplifying access, however, doesn’t necessarily simplify storage. If
any client needs bitemporal data, we have to store it somehow. While there
are some databases that have built-in support for for some level of
temporality, they are relatively niche. And wisely, folks tend to be
extra-wary of niche technologies when it comes to long lived data.
Given that, often the best way is to come up with our own scheme. There
are two broad approaches.
The first is to use a bitemporal data structure: encoding the necessary date
information into the data structure used to store the data. This could
work by using nested date range objects, or a pair of start/end dates in a
| record start|| record end|| actual start|| actual end|| salary|
| Jan 1|| Dec 31|| Jan 1|| Feb 14|| 6000|
| Jan 1|| Feb 14|| Feb 15|| Dec 31|| 6000|
| Feb 15|| Dec 31|| Feb 15|| Dec 31|| 6400|
| Jan 1|| Dec 31|| Jan 1|| Mar 14|| 6000|
| Jan 1|| Feb 14|| Mar 15|| Apr 4|| 6000|
| Feb 15|| Dec 31|| Mar 15|| Apr 4|| 6500|
| Jan 1|| Feb 14|| Apr 5|| Dec 31|| 6000|
| Feb 15|| Dec 31|| Apr 5|| Dec 31|| 6400|
This allows access to all the bitemporal history, but is awkward to
update and query – although that can be made easier by making a library
handle access to bitemporal information.
The alternative is to use event
sourcing. Here we don’t store the state of Sally’s salary as our
primary store, instead we store all the changes as events. Such events
might look like this
| record date|| actual date|| action|| value|
| Jan 1|| Jan 1|| sally.salary|| 6000|
| Mar 15|| Feb 15|| sally.salary|| 6500|
| Apr 5|| Feb 15|| sally.salary|| 6400|
Pay attention to the fact that for if events need to support bitemporal
history, they need to be bitemporal themselves. This means each event
needs an actual date (or time) for when the event occurred in the world,
and a record date (or time) for when we learned about it.
Storing the events is conceptually more straightforward, but requires
more processing to answer a query. However much that processing can cached
by building a snapshot of the application’s state. So if most users of
this data only required current actual history, then we could build a data
structure that only supports actual history, populate it from
the events, and keep it up to date as new events trickle in. Those users
who wanted bitemporal data could create a more complex structure and
populate it from the same events, but their complexity wouldn’t make
things harder for those who wanted the simpler model. (And if some people
wanted to look at actual history on a different record date, they could
use almost all the same code for working with current actual history.)