> On Oct 4, 2021, at 12:46 PM, Ron <ronljohnso...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
