Feedback-ID: i76984098:Fastmail
Message-ID: <6a326644-c149-4f6f-874a-0b027f863146@aklaver.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 09:12:03 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Ideas about presenting data coming from sensors
To: Achilleas Mantzios - cloud <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>,
 "pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Achilleas Mantzios <itdev@gatewaynet.com>
References: <8d2dd92a-da16-435b-a38e-fe72191fc9d1@cloud.gatewaynet.com>
 <ea77fa23-6361-42f0-a511-8e0997dada26@aklaver.com>
 <d8892101-4cab-4f42-8c8b-9a84cb8ff767@cloud.gatewaynet.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
In-Reply-To: <d8892101-4cab-4f42-8c8b-9a84cb8ff767@cloud.gatewaynet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6a326644-c149-4f6f-874a-0b027f863146%40aklaver.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 2/13/25 01:53, Achilleas Mantzios - cloud wrote:
> Now my problem is on the design . We have :
> 
> a) tags that have primitive values, float4 lets say - this is the 
> majority, e.g. 60% of all tags
> 
> b) tags that contain alarms data also with defined structure, which have 
> additional data such as time of the initial alarm set, acknowledgement 
> of this alarm , validity of this alarm. Those represent smth like 35% fo 
> all tags
> 
> c) tags that are basically polymorphic (about 11 of them all in all), 
> each one has different structure, and their fields/cols range a few (1) 
> up to many (25)
> 
> We have a table for a) and a table for b).
> 
> If we followed a strict normalized approach then we would create 
> additionally 11 tables each tag of type c) . And we are not guaranteed 
> that the same tags would have the same structure over the whole 
> fleet/manufacturers. So we are thinking of putting all semi-structured 
> data of tags of type c) into one table with a single col of type jsonb .
>> From what I read timescaledb plays nice with jsonb (or at least not bad).
> 
> Do you ppl see any gotcha with this approach ?

The only thing I can see at this time is: 'And we are not guaranteed 
that the same tags would have the same structure over the whole 
fleet/manufacturers.'

That would seem to me to point to a need for a table that maps a 
structure template to a fleet or manufacturer and a corresponding field 
in table c) that holds the fleet/manufacturer information.

> 
> For starters we will not convert yet to timescaledb, but store them and 
> handle them like normal tables. At least until we grasp the ins and outs 
> of this.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com