If you feel like it, perhaps you could write a brief summary of your findings and post it in the Wiki. It would be a shame if hard data like this got lost to antiquity.
One lesson to take from this is that database writers, the authors of SQLite in particular, have gotten very good at enhancing performance. As you point out, for a single-user system like this, it's just not worth the effort to try and optimize anything. -tk On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 7:44 PM d k <[email protected]> wrote: > I did some more work on this because I was curious about SQLite and how it > handled nulls. Other systems I've used in the past didn't do a good job > with nulls, but I've been out of this kind of work for a while >10 years > now. So I mostly avoided them in past. But they were systems with a lot > more users. Not a single user type for use at the edge. It's not like there > are going to be lots of concurrent writes to the same table in a SQLite > setting or even 1,000's of transactions in an hour. > > I tried three files. All with the same ~5.4 million rows. > > There is one thing I haven't tested. Inserts. Maybe another time, maybe it > isn't worth it. > > In one file I filled all the null fields with -1 as a test and compared it > to the original. There was no benefit, it ended up being a little slower > (about 10% longer) and the table size did grow by 17%. Both on initially > pass and on subsequent passes without closing the file. I also tried these > two statements as I didn't include pressure previously so there were both > nulls and values other than null in that column: > > In the table that has nulls; > SELECT * FROM archive where ifnull(pressure,1); # this used to be very > slow. > > In the table that has -1'; > SELECT * FROM archive where pressure = -1; > > It seems to able to pick out nulls faster than values, opposite of other > systems I've used. I was wrong about nulls in SQLite. > > On to my altered schema where I removed all the columns I don't have > sensors or calculated values for. > > The altered schema is faster on the initial query, ~440ms to ~770ms as I > used before, SELECT * from archive WHERE datetime BETWEEN 1490563860 and > 1546298910;. But very close to the same after it's cached (about ~20ms) as > Tom correctly pointed out. I did make that error. I probably executed the > one query 2x and the other one only once without realizing it. > > My last test between the shortened schema and the original wview_extended. > For the original run of the original query above the smaller scheme is > ~470ms compared to ~730ms. Subsequent runs after caching no real difference > but still it's still slightly faster, 10ms. I picked a new query to try. > SELECT datetime, windDir FROM archive WHERE windDir = 45; > > When cached it's ~1045ms in the shorted schema and ~1141ms in > wview_extended. Not huge but on the order of 10%. Again a single user > machine probably nothing to write home about. The only thing I found > interesting about this one is that there is no real benefit from caching > for this one, no idea why, about 30ms longer on initial run. > > BTW I sailed on a J/42 on a long time ago. Also had a Flying Scot 4925 for > a while. > > On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 2:59:11 PM UTC-4 d k wrote: > >> I was talking about stuff I had at home. Was doing mechanical engineering >> in '84. But yes I remember those drives and 8" floppies that came after DEC >> tapes. >> >> This might be the smallest 'drive' you can buy today but it's a sd card, >> 128mb, >> https://smile.amazon.com/Cloudisk-Card-SDXC-Flash-Memory/dp/B07RP7JJFN/ >> >> The smallest HD is probably about 250gb. >> >> Let me try to do a query again. >> >> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:09:01 PM UTC-4 [email protected] wrote: >> >>> I bought a 512 MB disk for a VAX 11 in 1984 for $22,000. It was about >>> the size of a washing machine. These days, I don't think you can buy a disk >>> that small. >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 8:26 AM d k <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> All vacuumed up. >>>> .../weewx_archive.db 770,588,672 >>>> .../weewx_elec_archive.db 630,120,488 >>>> >>>> Still 140,468 kb smaller or 18.2% Again today this isn't an issue. >>>> Rather small amount of space when you can buy a HD for ~$0.04/gb or less >>>> and an SD card for ~$0.4/gb or so. >>>> >>>> This is a long way from when I started and a mb of HD was $2.79 >>>> ($2,790/gb) and had an access time of > 20ms. I guess I old habits are hard >>>> to break. >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 10:44:20 AM UTC-4 d k wrote: >>>> >>>>> Maybe this belongs in -development rather than -user? >>>>> >>>>> The whole reason for this exercise is that I want to change the schema >>>>> anyway to add other data from my ted6000 and perhaps a couple of other >>>>> items like a sensaphone web600 in addition to the weather envoy. So I need >>>>> columns that aren't in the wview_extended schema. I've figured out how to >>>>> fix the reports and having the ability to do that makes this a lot easier. >>>>> >>>>> And I'm still learning about what tk did when he built this. So it's >>>>> wonderful that he's an email away. You don't get that often. >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 10:27:18 AM UTC-4 d k wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thought I vacuumed them but doing it again to be sure. They are >>>>>> separate files and opened in separate processes. I didn't use weewx to >>>>>> create them. Use the following statements. I'll see what happens. They >>>>>> don't all have the same data types. I used integers where that works. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the unmodified one in file .../weewx_archive.db: >>>>>> CREATE TABLE "archive" ( >>>>>> "dateTime" int NOT NULL UNIQUE, >>>>>> "usUnits" int NOT NULL, >>>>>> "interval" int NOT NULL, >>>>>> "barometer" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "pressure" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "altimeter" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "inTemp" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "outTemp" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "inHumidity" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "outHumidity" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "windSpeed" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "windDir" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "windGust" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "windGustDir" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "rainRate" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "rain" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "dewpoint" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "windchill" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "heatindex" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "ET" REAL REAL, >>>>>> "radiation" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "UV" REAL REAL, >>>>>> "extraTemp1" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "extraTemp2" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "extraTemp3" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "soilTemp1" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "soilTemp2" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "soilTemp3" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "soilTemp4" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "leafTemp1" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "leafTemp2" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "extraHumid1" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "extraHumid2" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "soilMoist1" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "soilMoist2" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "soilMoist3" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "soilMoist4" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "leafWet1" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "leafWet2" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "rxCheckPercent" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "txBatteryStatus" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "consBatteryVoltage" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "hail" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "hailRate" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "heatingTemp" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "heatingVoltage" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "supplyVoltage" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "referenceVoltage" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "windBatteryStatus" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "rainBatteryStatus" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "outTempBatteryStatus" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "inTempBatteryStatus" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> PRIMARY KEY("dateTime") >>>>>> ); >>>>>> >>>>>> For the modified one in file .../weewx_elec_archive.db: >>>>>> CREATE TABLE "archive" ( >>>>>> "dateTime" INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE, >>>>>> "usUnits" INTEGER DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "interval" INTEGER DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "barometer" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "pressure" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "altimeter" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "inTemp" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "outTemp" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "inHumidity" INTEGER DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "outHumidity" INTEGER DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "windSpeed" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "windDir" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "windGust" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "windGustDir" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "rainRate" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "rain" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "dewpoint" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "windchill" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "heatindex" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "ET" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "radiation" INTEGER DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "UV" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "soilTemp1" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "leafTemp1" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "soilMoist1" INTEGER DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "leafWet1" INTEGER DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "rxCheckPercent" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "txBatteryStatus" INTEGER DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> "consBatteryVoltage" REAL DEFAULT NULL, >>>>>> PRIMARY KEY("dateTime") >>>>>> ); >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:29:18 AM UTC-4 [email protected] >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh, one other tip: make sure you VACUUM >>>>>>> <https://sqlite.org/lang_vacuum.html> both databases before >>>>>>> comparing sizes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 6:27 AM Tom Keffer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How are you running the two benchmarks? In the same process? SQLite >>>>>>>> caches pages, so the second query should be much faster. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Try reversing the order. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -tk >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 6:18 AM d k <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I never used SQLite before and my previous comments were based on >>>>>>>>> mysql. I decided to do an experiment as it was raining yesterday. >>>>>>>>> Read some >>>>>>>>> of the SQLite documentation and installed it. Impressed by how >>>>>>>>> lightweight >>>>>>>>> it is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have to agree with everyone that the savings from removing all >>>>>>>>> the unused columns in sqlite is small. In my case 19.3% or from >>>>>>>>> 762,440 kb >>>>>>>>> to 615,352 kb = 147,088 kb with 5,480,150 rows. Not insignificant but >>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>> a small difference. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since I had the two SQLite database files I decided to try a >>>>>>>>> query. Expected a large time penalty from all the null columns. >>>>>>>>> "SELECT * >>>>>>>>> from archive WHERE datetime BETWEEN 1490563860 and 1546298910;" on >>>>>>>>> both >>>>>>>>> files. I'm doing this on machine other than what I run weewx on, it's >>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>> faster. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When executed against the unmodified schema: >>>>>>>>> Execution finished without errors. >>>>>>>>> Result: 928677 rows returned in 729ms... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When executed against the modified schema: >>>>>>>>> Execution finished without errors. >>>>>>>>> Result: 928677 rows returned in 127ms... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is without additional columns I need, which drove this to >>>>>>>>> begin with. When they are added in as they are null for all of these >>>>>>>>> records the execution goes to about 429ms for the modified schema. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A savings of 602ms or a query that runs in 82.6% less time is, >>>>>>>>> well huge when it's a simple select statement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I haven't tried replacing all the nulls with some value yet. >>>>>>>>> Perhaps '-1' or some other value those columns would never hold. But >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> next rainy day I just might. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you aren't doing a lot of queries on the data this also isn't >>>>>>>>> all that big a deal. Which was the reason for installing mysql. The >>>>>>>>> nulls >>>>>>>>> are the reason you can't normalize the data and have it work >>>>>>>>> acceptable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 9:09:23 PM UTC-4 bdf0506 wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've found that deleting columns out of the schema of the archive >>>>>>>>>> table does more hard than good. I had a 3.x installation for a >>>>>>>>>> while, and i >>>>>>>>>> had trimmed many columns that I didn't need, and also renamed some. >>>>>>>>>> While >>>>>>>>>> it would work great for general manual querying of the data, many >>>>>>>>>> skins >>>>>>>>>> would throw weird errors, mostly when they would expect schemas that >>>>>>>>>> weren't there. I moved to 4.x recently, and decided to ditch my >>>>>>>>>> custom >>>>>>>>>> schema and go with a fresh install with the extended schema. >>>>>>>>>> Exporting data >>>>>>>>>> from the old column names to then importing to the new column names >>>>>>>>>> proved >>>>>>>>>> to be trickier than I would have hoped, but eventually got it >>>>>>>>>> working and >>>>>>>>>> the had to go and manually update many skins I would use. Overall it >>>>>>>>>> was a >>>>>>>>>> PITA and I wish I would have just stuck with the original schema >>>>>>>>>> from the >>>>>>>>>> beginning. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> tl;dr - stick with the default schemas to save you a headache! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 12:40:53 AM UTC-4 >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> BTW I'm in awe of what you've done with this. It's an amazing >>>>>>>>>>> effort and I really like what you've done. It works better than many >>>>>>>>>>> comercial apps I've had to use. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 6:17:00 PM UTC-4 [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry. I should have prefaced my comments that they pertain to >>>>>>>>>>>> SQLite. I have no experience with MySQL. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 8:52 AM d k <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The size of the indexes on the archive table are <51mb in both >>>>>>>>>>>>> cases. There is no difference here. I totally agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the reason you don't see a difference in size is >>>>>>>>>>>>> because of how null values are stored, I think in 1 byte but >>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't found >>>>>>>>>>>>> a reference. So yes even if you remove 20 unused types you only >>>>>>>>>>>>> remove 20 >>>>>>>>>>>>> bytes which as you point out is nothing. But the extra columns >>>>>>>>>>>>> still affect >>>>>>>>>>>>> read and write performance. Write isn't a big big deal as we >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't do lots >>>>>>>>>>>>> of writes anyway. But we might do lots of reads depending on what >>>>>>>>>>>>> we are >>>>>>>>>>>>> doing with our station data and we probably are all running this >>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>> inexpensive slow hardware. In my case a RPi but a new one which >>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't all >>>>>>>>>>>>> that slow other than if you're comparing it to something else >>>>>>>>>>>>> that's new. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But, for instance it still cut the time to make the daily >>>>>>>>>>>>> summiers by more >>>>>>>>>>>>> than half. Again not like we do that often so not a huge deal. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is where the real change probably came from. I also >>>>>>>>>>>>> changed the data types of the observations from double (8 bytes) >>>>>>>>>>>>> to float >>>>>>>>>>>>> (4 bytes). Mysql made the sqllite data type doubles instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>> floats. I >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have REAL_AS_FLOAT set and that's my fault. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to move to FLOAT(n) and set the precision on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> columns next which won't change the row length, as the columns >>>>>>>>>>>>> are all >>>>>>>>>>>>> still 4 bytes, but to make things easier when I use other >>>>>>>>>>>>> applications >>>>>>>>>>>>> against this data set. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In my case the length of the data went from ~1.1 gb to <650mb >>>>>>>>>>>>> in this case. It also reduced the size of the binlogs, which get >>>>>>>>>>>>> purged >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway. It also reduced the size of the *ib* files. It cut the >>>>>>>>>>>>> time to and >>>>>>>>>>>>> size of dumping the table almost by half, I haven't tried >>>>>>>>>>>>> restoring yet but >>>>>>>>>>>>> expect the same. Queries run faster. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In my opinion there are other reasons to trim the schema to >>>>>>>>>>>>> fit your needs other than the size of the data file. But yes it's >>>>>>>>>>>>> more work >>>>>>>>>>>>> and that depends on how you use your data if it's worth it or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously I think it's worth it and YMMV. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -dk >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 9:01:49 AM UTC-4 >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trimming the schema does not make as big a difference in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> database size as you might think. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, using my own database of 1.4M rows, trimming the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> schema from 48 observation types to 27, reduces the size from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 268MB to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 201MB. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reason is that most of the space is taken up by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> indexes, not the column data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -tk >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 8:02 PM d k <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup.. I just found that and was about to report back I was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying it that was it. Just restarted the test system to see if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it went >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away. I think I got rid of all of them now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary you are the best. Thanks so much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 10:54:27 PM UTC-4 gjr80 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First up, thank you for not posting images of text, it’s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes reading/searching logs a real pain. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The error is due to a skin trying to generate a plot that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involves extraTemp1 and from the short log extract I would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guess that this is from the Seasons skin. If you look in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Seasons skin config file (skins/Seasons/skin.conf) under >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ImageGenerator] you will find the daytemp, weektemp, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monthtemp and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yeartemp plots use extraTemp1 (and extraTemp2 and extraTemp3). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Easiest fix >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to comment out those plots, eg: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> # [[[daytemp]]] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> # yscale = None, None, 0.5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> # [[[[extraTemp1]]]] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> # [[[[extraTemp2]]]] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> # [[[[extraTemp3]]]] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Save skin.conf and the error should go away on the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report cycle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 9 October 2020 at 12:29:14 UTC+10 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to post this as an image but it doesn't show. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here is the text. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] ERROR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: Caught unrecoverable exception in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generator >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'weewx.imagegenerator.ImageGenerator' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] ERROR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: **** extraTemp1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] ERROR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: **** Traceback (most recent call >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] ERROR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: **** File >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "/usr/share/weewx/weewx/reportengine.py", line 197, in run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] ERROR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: **** obj.start() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] ERROR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: **** File >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "/usr/share/weewx/weewx/reportengine.py", line 280, in start >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] ERROR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: **** self.run() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] ERROR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: **** File >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "/usr/share/weewx/weewx/imagegenerator.py", line 41, in run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] ERROR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: **** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self.genImages(self.gen_ts) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] ERROR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: **** File >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "/usr/share/weewx/weewx/imagegenerator.py", line 176, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genImages >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] ERROR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: **** start_vec_t, stop_vec_t >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ,data_vec_t = >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.xtypes.get_series(var_type, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] ERROR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: **** File >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "/usr/share/weewx/weewx/xtypes.py", line 91, in get_series >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] ERROR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: **** raise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.UnknownType(obs_type) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] ERROR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: **** weewx.UnknownType: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extraTemp1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] ERROR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: **** Generator terminated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oct 8 20:03:19 prometis weewx[271870] DEBUG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weewx.reportengine: Report 'SmartphoneReport' not enabled. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skipping. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 9:39:14 PM UTC-4 Duane >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kerzic wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for all the help you provided last time around. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance this time for your help. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to clean up weewx.archive table and make it a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit smaller. So I deleted the columns I don't think I'll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever use. But now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm getting this in the system log. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm guessing that extraTemp1 is coded into one of those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files but I haven't looked to find out yet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've shortened the average row length of the archive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table to 126 from 217 bytes. Huge difference when you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 years of data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -dk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "weewx-user" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from it, send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/02d0a56e-c9fc-4e48-a74a-cdb6291474bbn%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/02d0a56e-c9fc-4e48-a74a-cdb6291474bbn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "weewx-user" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>>>>>>>>>>>> it, send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/853cbe79-ee93-49b3-90c3-6a9a02dab1b7n%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/853cbe79-ee93-49b3-90c3-6a9a02dab1b7n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "weewx-user" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/77e5e730-9cf0-4dbb-99c1-568d7fd32caen%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/77e5e730-9cf0-4dbb-99c1-568d7fd32caen%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "weewx-user" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/a82db714-911b-45df-9f3b-caef8c7f0471n%40googlegroups.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/a82db714-911b-45df-9f3b-caef8c7f0471n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "weewx-user" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/b2efb4aa-cced-4ebe-ac27-c10613abd30bn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/b2efb4aa-cced-4ebe-ac27-c10613abd30bn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weewx-user" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/CAPq0zEBbQt-jNn1xAdsn%2B3xs%3Dc0aL4Hc3cu%3D_DsPO2j1nEWnVg%40mail.gmail.com.
