Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Don't require location for ingest #355

Closed
matschaffer opened this issue Feb 1, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed

Don't require location for ingest #355

matschaffer opened this issue Feb 1, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

@matschaffer
Copy link
Contributor

matschaffer commented Feb 1, 2017

Requested by @rayozzie in https://safecast.slack.com/archives/api/p1485954663001534

Use cases from ray include:

  1. Solarcast unable to get a GPS fix: The device can report last known location until it detects motion at which point it doesn't know where it is
  2. Lower-cost non-GPS solarcast devices: These will be similar to pointcast where they have a known fixed location but the device won't keep any record on its internal memory
  3. Devices with a secret location: We'd never want to map these, but we can report environmental trends w/o disclosing the device's location (e.g., for security reasons)
  4. Telemetry measurements such as battery, etc that may come in separate from environment measurements for which location is not useful to report

We should be able to ingest this data and store it somehow without impacting the ability to generate maps and reports from our located data.

@matschaffer
Copy link
Contributor Author

My inclination here is to reduce measurements to nothing but:

  • device_id
  • captured_at
  • payload

Then we can (possibly via triggers, in-band double-write, workers or materialized views) write located measurements to a table that includes a geometry column for mapping purposes.

Possibly flattening the payload data in the same ETL.

@matschaffer matschaffer added this to Reviewing in CLOSED - 2017-Q1 Feb 15, 2017
@matschaffer matschaffer moved this from Reviewing to Done in CLOSED - 2017-Q1 Feb 15, 2017
@matschaffer
Copy link
Contributor Author

Already deployed. Forgot to link the tickets.

@matschaffer matschaffer removed this from Ready in CLOSED - 2017-Q2 Feb 15, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
No open projects
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant