On 3/25/20 5:23 PM, Matt Magoffin wrote:
On 23/03/2020, at 1:10 PM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
So the query is in the function solardatum.store_datum()?
If so what is it doing?
Yes. This function first performs the INSERT INTO the
solardatum.da_datum table that we’re discussing here; then it inserts
into two different tables. If it helps, the actual SQL is available here:
https://github.com/SolarNetwork/solarnetwork-central/blob/4fa585929a5526187ade0e842c809837647c6a41/solarnet-db-setup/postgres/postgres-init-generic-datum-x-functions.sql#L203-L242
I told see anything wrong at first glance, but is getting late here. I
will take another look in the morning.
And could you capture the values and pass them to a RAISE NOTICE?
It would take me some time to get that change deployed. If I was able
to, what information do you think would be helpful here, e.g. that
jdata_a is NULL or not, or something else?
The values for (node_id, ts, source_id, jdata_a) as they compromise the
UNIQUE values for da_datum_pkey and da_datum_x_acc_idx.
The duplicate key violation occurs infrequently, and it does seem
appropriate to drop the UNIQUE constraint on the da_datum_x_acc_idx
given uniqueness is really only wanted on (node_id, ts, source_id). As
long as I can confirm that query performance doesn’t decrease, I’d like
to recreate the index without UNIQUE. Then I’m hoping this problem,
whatever the cause, goes away.
— m@
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
