From: | Arcadiy Ivanov <arcadiy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: IoT/sensor data and B-Tree page splits |
Date: | 2019-08-26 23:29:32 |
Message-ID: | c2a3ca58-6bbe-062b-cf1e-3962d9756116@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/26/19 6:48 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Such data often consists of timestamps from a large number
> of low cost devices -- event data that arrives *approximately* in
> order. This is more or less the problem that the TimescaleDB extension
> targets, so it seems likely that a fair number of users care about
> getting it right, even if they don't know it.
This problem is not limited to IoT but to RT financial transaction
ingestion as well.
I found BRIN indices to work exceptionally well for that, while B-tree
taking enormous amounts of space with no performance difference or win
going to BRIN.
The situation gets even worse when B-tree index is subjected to
identical tuples which often happens when you have an avalanche of
timestamps that are within less than 1ms of each other (frequent TS
rounding resolution).
--
Arcadiy Ivanov
arcadiy(at)gmail(dot)com | @arcivanov | https://ivanov.biz
https://github.com/arcivanov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-08-26 23:49:44 | Re: IoT/sensor data and B-Tree page splits |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-26 22:59:38 | Re: old_snapshot_threshold vs indexes |