On 10/4/21 3:09 PM, Israel Brewster wrote:
On 10/4/21 12:36 PM, Israel Brewster wrote:
[snip]
Indeed. Table per station as opposed to partitioning? The *most* I can reasonably envision needing is to query two stations, i.e. I could see potentially wanting to compare station a to some “baseline” station b. In general, though, the stations are independent, and it seems unlikely that we will need any multi-station queries. Perhaps query one station, then a second query for a second to display graphs for both side-by-side to look for correlations or something, but nothing like that has been suggested at the moment.
Postgresql partitions
are tables. What if you partition by station (or range of stations)?
Yeah, that’s what I thought, but Rob had said “Table per station”, so I wasn’t sure if he was referring to *not* using partitioning, but just making “plain” tables.
Regardless, I intend to try portioning by station sometime this week, to see how performance compares to the “one big table” I currently have. Also to figure out how to get it set up, which from what I’ve seen appears to be a bit of a pain point.
---
My "strict" table per station suggestion was meant as an option to avoid the partitioning pain point entirely if it wasn't going to buy you anything. Namely querying more than one station's data.
Ah, so in theory making “strict” tables for each would be easier than creating partitions for each? Something to consider for sure if so.
In a write-once scenario such as this, would a "clustered index" on datetime be stable, performant? Seems a read-for-export could put the head down at time point A and just go?
That’s beyond my level of DB admin knowledge, unfortunately :) I can certainly read up on it and give it a try though!
---
Israel Brewster
Software Engineer
Alaska Volcano Observatory
Geophysical Institute - UAF
2156 Koyukuk Drive
Fairbanks AK 99775-7320
Work: 907-474-5172
cell: 907-328-9145
