How can we improve the PI Server?

Allow Rollup analysis to output to to an Analysis Data Reference

I would like there to be a way to output the results of a rollup analysis to an Analysis Data Reference, so that I can view a trend without having to write to a PI point. Currently, there is no option to have a rollup analysis that does not write to a PI point other than changing it to a None DR after the fact, and if you do this you cannot see a trend of the attribute (it shows a flat line).

6 votes
Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
Signed in as (Sign out)

We’ll send you updates on this idea

Vincent Partusch shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →


Sign in Sign in with OSIsoft
Signed in as (Sign out)
  • Nitin Agarwal commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    In response to Zev Arnold, "Suppose that, for instance: * I introduc..."
    Hi Zev - We are currently working on supporting automatic recalculation feature for Analytics. When available, this should solve 2/3 scenarios that you described above - (1) updated input/source data and (2) late arriving or out-of-order data. The PI Analysis service will monitor such updates to data for analysis inputs and trigger recalculations as required.
    The third use case that you described (introducing a new sub-element) is a bit tricky and is different than other two, in the sense that (1) and (2) will in most cases only require recalculating a limited range of data (depending on the range for updated data and calculation logic), while (3) requires recalculating analysis for the entire duration that it has been running. This can be really expensive, and may not even be desirable in all cases. Currently, we are not planning to address automatic recalculation for configuration changes for analyses - i.e. updates to calculation logic or updating list of roll-up inputs, but will love to hear feedback from the community.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    In response to Chris Manhard, "There are many things that make an on-de..."
    Suppose that, for instance:
    * I introduce a new cleansing algorithm on one of my source attributes for the calculation and would like the history of my rollup to reflect the new cleansing.
    * My rollup includes manually entered data from a TLDR which is time-series, but entered erratically.  I would like the history of my rollup to reflect the manually entered source data to the best of our knowledge *at the moment of request*.
    * I introduce a new sub-element underneath my rollup that I would like the history of my rollup to reflect rather than only reflecting it from the time I moved the element onward.

    All of these problems are derivatives of the recalculation dilemma, i.e. Lambda problems (courtesy Nathan Marz).  If I want to be confident that my calculation reflects the best data *at the moment of request* then I have three options:
    1. Compute it on demand
    2. Remember to recalculate whenever anything changes
    3. Engage in some kind of Lambda architecture shenanigans

    Number 2, and I cannot stress this enough, is HIGHLY undesirable.  If the PI System is to be a trusted data layer for analytics then we need to be sure that it accurately reflects the data it models.  Trying to track which analyses are dependent on which inputs can grow to a monumental task, particularly when we start looking at solutions at scale such as advanced metering.  My current approach is to mix options 1 and 3.  Where I can compute on demand in a reasonably timely fashion, then I do that.  Where the on-demand calculation is too slow, I deploy Lambda shenanigans.

    I see solving this problem as particularly important to keeping AF relevant in the age of Big Data.  If AF is not the engine to guarantee fidelity for time-series data then it has lost a significant competitive advantage to other calculation engines (like Spark, I suppose).

    It would be great to get some feedback from the community on this.  Such as (Lonnie Bowling, Rhys Kirk, Robert Raesemann, Alexander Brodskiy, Eduan Smit, Ashok Krishnan, Wesley Tucker, Wilson Correa, Ian Gore, Akash Naik, luis Trejo)

  • AdminChris Manhard (Software Engineer, OSIsoft) commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    In response to Zev Arnold, "Nope!  I was wrong.  I fixed my issue, b..."
    There are many things that make an on-demand rollup taxing on the system - more so than might be apparent.   General expectations for time-series based attributes is the ability to notify on change, summarize, trend, interpolate, calculate previous values, etc.  Meeting those requirements and dealing with a potentially dynamically changing and potentially quite large set of input attributes - including nested rollups - does not make sense when we have the PI Data archive available to store those results.  Is there a particular reason, other than cost of a tag, that you are avoiding tag creation?

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Nope!  I was wrong.  I fixed my issue, but the "Save Output History" is still greyed out on Rollups.  It looks like these are disabled by design.  Chris Manhard, another example of OSIsoft protecting us from creating expensive queries or is there a larger issue here?
    FYI, I happened upon this thread because I'm trying to do the same thing. : )

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Vincent, after clicking "Map" in the Output column to select an output attribute for the rollup, you should be able to select the "No" radio button next to "Save Output History".  This should create an Analysis Data Reference attribute.

    On my installation, the radio buttons are greyed out, but I think that's due to some bug that I need to track down with OSIsoft.  I don't think that's expected behavior.

Feedback and Knowledge Base

Posted ideas will have one of the following statuses.
Full definition of these statuses can be found on the Home Page.
No status