Re: IoT/sensor data and B-Tree page splits
От | Arcadiy Ivanov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: IoT/sensor data and B-Tree page splits |
Дата | |
Msg-id | c2a3ca58-6bbe-062b-cf1e-3962d9756116@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | IoT/sensor data and B-Tree page splits (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: IoT/sensor data and B-Tree page splits
|
Список | 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@gmail.com | @arcivanov | https://ivanov.biz https://github.com/arcivanov
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: