On 3/25/20 5:23 PM, Matt Magoffin wrote:

On 23/03/2020, at 1:10 PM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com <mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com>> 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:


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

Reply via email to