Re: Growth planning

> On Oct 4, 2021, at 12:46 PM, Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)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.