What is the best way to store a large number of data points?
For example, temperature values that are measured every minute in many places?
Single row SQL databases on data points do not look very efficient.
I would like to know why you think this is "inefficient." You probably need to explain your data model and schema to give a better script context.
, , . , , .
, , . 3-5 30-60 . , , .
, , . (Clustered index) . .
: ?
, , .
OTOH, , .
- , / .
Such a table may work:
LocationID, temperature, timestamp
I do not understand why this would be inefficient. After all, these are databases.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/1699001/More articles:Hibernation criteria - single object selection - hibernatehttps://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&pto=aue&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://fooobar.com/questions/1698997/how-to-migrate-from-ms-access-to-sql-server-2005&usg=ALkJrhiy3GQ_kXyY8QHD0IScrgD2VlzE0QПочему Microsoft выбрала RESTful API через WebDAV для хранения BLOB? - restКак использовать pkglib_LTLIBRARIES = test.la только для сборки *.so - shared-librariesImage manipulation in CodeIgniter - phpConfiguring SQL Server 2005 with server replication and client replication - sql-server-2005JPA / Hibernate Select the Column on Join - joinCan you name the Ada functions from C ++? - c ++How to implement a wiki style in your web application? - wikiWord Automation Using WIN32OLE - ruby | fooobar.comAll Articles