On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:09 AM, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Scara Maccai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Since you always need the timestamp in your selects, have you tried indexing
>> only the timestamp field?
>> Your selects would be slower, but since client and sensor don't have that
>> many distinct values compared to the number of rows you are inserting maybe
>> the difference in selects would not be that huge.
>
> Even better might be partitioning on the timestamp. IF all access is
> in a certain timestamp range it's usually a big win, especially
> because he can move to a new table every hour / day / week or whatever
> and merge the old one into a big "old data" table.
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Yes, If i would speed the inserts tremendously... I've tested it
and the insert speed is somewhere at 200k->100k.
But unfortunately the query speed is not good at all because most
queries are for a specific client (and sensor) in a given time
range...
Ciprian Craciun.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
