If you just want to save Home Assistant from writing to the database, you
can exclude items. They still are active in HA, just not permantly saved.
I'm using these along with some other info to make my window shades sun
aware.
recorder:
exclude:
entities:
- sensor.sun_altitude
- sensor.sun_azimuth
- sensor.solar_radiation_max_clear_sky
- sensor.solar_radiation
entity_globs:
- sensor.weewx_*
On Thursday, July 9, 2026 at 10:40:11 PM UTC-4 John Smith wrote:
> I need to do better at articulating my thoughts it seems.
>
> Yes I fully appreciate that rate limiting at the source might be
> beneficial and desirable for some in some circumstances, however the point
> I mentioned in a round about way is that while limiting loop data might be
> fine most of the time, there are events such as significant temperature
> changes before it hails and rain fall during heavy events that loop packets
> data would be more useful.
>
> Which could be taken into account, like I'm planning to do, rather than
> blindly filtering by time.
>
> While not applicable to this specific situation, the other point I made is
> not all rate limiting can be done server side.
>
> On Fri, 10 July 2026, 4:11 am Greg Troxel, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> John Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> >> What if you had temperature measurements every second?
>> >
>> > I solved that problem already for the soil moisture sensors +
>> > temperature/humidity sensors on my ZigBee network as the sensors send
>> > bursts of readings but there can be 30+ minutes between bursts as well.
>> >
>> > Since the timestamps are unique, my script that copies the readings to
>> the
>> > DB filters the readings so that there is at least 15s between readings,
>> > then later on I also prune the database so there is at least 5 minutes
>> > between readings, although the script doing the insertion could
>> track/check
>> > when the last insertion was.
>>
>> That seems like an approach that works for you. There are various
>> transmission mechanisms, and various code running at receivers, and I
>> believe that a significant number of people would benefit from reduction
>> of communications, and ingest/db resources, especially in systems where
>> it's less easy to inject code (because of the person, or the system).
>>
>> You seem to be suggesting that rate limits are not reasonable, because
>> you have a personal scheme, in one system instantiation, where you don't
>> need them. That's that I'm reacting to. I'm not claiming that what
>> you're doing is wrong, just that it's not valid to extrapolate from that
>> to a conclusion that all rate limits are unnecessary.
>>
>
--
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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/weewx-user/af7f3ff8-64e3-402e-89aa-b082f8342148n%40googlegroups.com.
