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.
---
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
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
