> On Oct 4, 2021, at 8:46 AM, Rob Sargent <robjsarg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 4, 2021, at 10:22 AM, Israel Brewster <ijbrews...@alaska.edu >> <mailto:ijbrews...@alaska.edu>> wrote: > Guessing the “sd” is "standard deviation”? Any chance those stddevs are > easily calculable from base data? Could cut your table size in half (and put > those 20 cores to work on the reporting).
Possible - I’d have to dig into that with the script author. I was just handed an R script (I don’t work with R…) and told here’s the data it needs, here’s the output we need stored in the DB. I then spent just enough time with the script to figure out how to hook up the I/O. The schema is pretty much just a raw dump of the output - I haven’t really spent any resources figuring out what, exactly, the data is. Maybe I should :-) > And I wonder if the last three indices are strictly necessary? They take > disc space too. Not sure. Here’s the output from pg_stat_all_indexes: volcano_seismology=# select * from pg_stat_all_indexes where relname='data'; relid | indexrelid | schemaname | relname | indexrelname | idx_scan | idx_tup_read | idx_tup_fetch -------+------------+------------+---------+---------------------------+----------+--------------+--------------- 19847 | 19869 | public | data | data_pkey | 0 | 0 | 0 19847 | 19873 | public | data | date_station_channel_idx | 811884 | 12031143199 | 1192412952 19847 | 19875 | public | data | station_channel_epoch_idx | 8 | 318506 | 318044 19847 | 19876 | public | data | station_data_idx | 9072 | 9734 | 1235 19847 | 19877 | public | data | station_date_idx | 721616 | 10927533403 | 10908912092 19847 | 20479 | public | data | data_station_channel_idx | 47293 | 194422257262 | 6338753379 (6 rows) so they *have* been used (although not the station_data_idx so much), but this doesn’t tell me when it was last used, so some of those may be queries I was experimenting with to see what was fastest, but are no longer in use. Maybe I should keep an eye on this for a while, see which values are increasing. > > But my bet is you’re headed for partitioning on datetime or perhaps station. While datetime partitioning seems to be the most common, I’m not clear on how that would help here, as the most intensive queries need *all* the datetimes for a given station, and even the smaller queries would be getting an arbitrary time range potentially spanning several, if not all, partitions. Now portioning on station seems to make sense - there are over 100 of those, and pretty much any query will only deal with a single station at a time. Perhaps if more partitioning would be better, portion by both station and channel? The queries that need to be fastest will only be looking at a single channel of a single station. I’ll look into this a bit more, maybe try some experimenting while I still have *relatively* little data. My main hesitation here is that in the brief look I’ve given partitioning so far, it looks to be a royal pain to get set up. Any tips for making that easier? Thanks for the suggestion! --- 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
