From: | "Nathan Buchanan" <nbinont(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, steve(at)blighty(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: storage of sensor data with Fourier transforms |
Date: | 2007-05-06 06:07:15 |
Message-ID: | d51c18ed0705052307w38b1cf65j1f2f625eec797904@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/5/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> "Nathan Buchanan" <nbinont(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I had the idea of taking the Fourier transform of the waveform and
> storing
> > the waveform internally that way to reduce storage requirements.
>
> Aside from what Steve said: The Fourier transform in itself doesn't
> reduce data size --- it's N points in, N points out. If you want to
> reduce storage requirements you have to resort to lossy compression, ie,
> deliberately throwing away some data. The transformed data might be
> more suitable for doing that (eg you can selectively discard
> high-frequency components) but do you really want to? Usually the point
> of storing measurements is so you can do unspecified analysis on them
> later. Applying lossy compression will restrict what you can
> (meaningfully) do later on.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Thanks for the replies. It seems I need to examine my plan more closely.
Nathan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2007-05-06 09:56:28 | Re: Managing the community information stream |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-05-06 02:30:15 | Managing the community information stream |