RE: Indexes for inequalities

I'm averaging 1.5 ranges per ID over about 3 months.

Still, it's a good opportunity to learn to do it right.

Follow-up questions:
- what data type do you use to go from RPostgreSQL to a tztrange using dbWriteTable? (Or do I need to make it into a text field in R first ... which is doable.)
- how do you build a constraint that there are no overlapping ranges for a given ID?

Thanks again,
Stephen

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 11:24 AM
To: Stephen Froehlich <s(dot)froehlich(at)cablelabs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-novice <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Indexes for inequalities

Stephen Froehlich <s(dot)froehlich(at)cablelabs(dot)com> writes:
> I am creating an intersect table where I have a relationship that is true for a period of time and then a series of observations, so we're looking at something like:

> SELECT * FROM
> observations
> INNER JOIN
> relationships
> ON (observations.id = relationships.id AND observations.time >=
> relationships.time_from AND observations.time < relationships.time_to)

> How do I best build indexes on "relationships", which is a few hundred
> thousand lines in length for a fast join?

You won't get terribly great results from standard btree indexes on that sort of range test. If there are not too many relationships entries per "id" then it might not matter, but if there are a lot then you need decent index selectivity for the time aspect too. You might do better by representing the time_from/time_to pair as a range and then using a GIST index on the range, along the lines of

SELECT * FROM
observations
INNER JOIN
relationships
ON (observations.id = relationships.id AND observations.time <@ tstzrange(relationships.time_from, relationships.time_to))

I think you'd need the btree_gist extension as well, so that the index can be like

create index on relationships using gist (id, tstzrange(time_from,time_to));

You could do it just like this and leave the table storage alone, but it might be better to materialize the range value as an actual column in the table.

regards, tom lane