PostgreSQL – How to Save an Interval of Years

No, the interval type supports reduced precision but none of the other date/time types do.

Postgres allows you to roll your own with create type but unfortunately wont allow contraints to be added to the type which limits it's usefulness in this scenario. The best I can come up with requires you to repeat check constraints on every field where the fuzzy type is used:

create type preciseness as enum('day', 'month', 'year');
create type fuzzytimestamptz as (ts timestamptz, p preciseness);
create table t( id serial primary key,
                fuzzy fuzzytimestamptz
                    check( (fuzzy).ts is not null 
                           or ((fuzzy).ts is null and (fuzzy).p is not null) ),
                    check((fuzzy).ts=date_trunc('year', (fuzzy).ts) or (fuzzy).p<'year'),
                    check((fuzzy).ts=date_trunc('month', (fuzzy).ts) or (fuzzy).p<'month'),
                    check((fuzzy).ts=date_trunc('day', (fuzzy).ts) or (fuzzy).p<'day') );

insert into t(fuzzy) values (row(date_trunc('year', current_timestamp), 'year'));
insert into t(fuzzy) values (row(date_trunc('month', current_timestamp), 'month'));
insert into t(fuzzy) values (row(date_trunc('day', current_timestamp), 'day'));

select * from t;

 id |              fuzzy
----+----------------------------------
  1 | ("2011-01-01 00:00:00+00",year)
  2 | ("2011-09-01 00:00:00+01",month)
  3 | ("2011-09-23 00:00:00+01",day)

--edit - an example equality operator:

create function fuzzytimestamptz_equality(fuzzytimestamptz, fuzzytimestamptz)
                returns boolean language plpgsql immutable as $$
begin
  return ($1.ts, $1.ts+coalesce('1 '||$1.p, '0')::interval)
         overlaps ($2.ts, $2.ts+coalesce('1 '||$2.p, '0')::interval);
end;$$;
--
create operator = ( procedure=fuzzytimestamptz_equality, 
                    leftarg=fuzzytimestamptz, 
                    rightarg=fuzzytimestamptz );

sample query:

select *, fuzzy=row(statement_timestamp(), null)::fuzzytimestamptz as equals_now,
          fuzzy=row(statement_timestamp()+'1 day'::interval, null)::fuzzytimestamptz as equals_tomorrow,
          fuzzy=row(date_trunc('month', statement_timestamp()), 'month')::fuzzytimestamptz as equals_fuzzymonth,
          fuzzy=row(date_trunc('month', statement_timestamp()+'1 month'::interval), 'month')::fuzzytimestamptz as equals_fuzzynextmonth
from t;
 id |               fuzzy                | equals_now | equals_tomorrow | equals_fuzzymonth | equals_fuzzynextmonth
----+------------------------------------+------------+-----------------+-------------------+-----------------------
  1 | ("2011-01-01 00:00:00+00",year)    | t          | t               | t                 | t
  2 | ("2011-09-01 00:00:00+01",month)   | t          | t               | t                 | f
  3 | ("2011-09-24 00:00:00+01",day)     | t          | f               | t                 | f
  4 | ("2011-09-24 11:45:23.810589+01",) | f          | f               | t                 | f

1st case

You seem to forget the valid_during range. As your third case suggests, there can be multiple entries per (rec_id, val), so you must select the right one:

UPDATE master m
SET    valid_on = f_array_sort(m.valid_on || u.valid_on) -- sorted array, see below
FROM   updates u
WHERE  m.rec_id = u.rec_id 
AND    m.valid_during @> u.valid_on  -- additional check
AND    m.val = u.val 
AND    NOT m.valid_on @> ARRAY[u.valid_on];

I assume the whole possible date range is always covered for each existing rec_id and valid_during shall not overlap per rec_id, or you'd have to do more.

After installing the additional module btree_gist, add an exclusion constraint to rule out overlapping date ranges if you don't have one, yet:

ALTER TABLE master ADD CONSTRAINT EXCLUDE
USING gist (rec_id WITH =, valid_during WITH &&)  -- disallow overlap

The GiST index this is implemented with is also a perfect match for the query. Details:

• Preventing adjacent/overlapping entries with EXCLUDE in PostgreSQL
• Store the day of the week and time?

2nd / 3rd case

Assuming that every date range starts with the smallest date in the (now sorted!) array: lower(m.valid_during) = m.valid_on[1]. I would enforce that with a CHECK constraint.

Here we need to create one or two new rows In the 2nd case it is enough to shrink the range of the old row and insert one new row In the 3rd case we update the old row with the left half of array and range, insert the new row and finally insert the with the right half of array and range.

Helper functions

To keep it simple I introduce a new constraint: every array is sorted. Use this helper function

-- sort array
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f_array_sort(anyarray) 
  RETURNS anyarray LANGUAGE sql IMMUTABLE AS
$$SELECT ARRAY (SELECT unnest($1) ORDER BY 1)$$;

I don't need your helper function arraymin() any more, but it could be simplified to:

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f_array_min(anyarray) 
  RETURNS anyelement LANGUAGE sql IMMUTABLE AS
$$SELECT min(a) FROM unnest($1) a$$;

Two more to get the left and right half of an array split at a given element:

-- split left array at given element
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f_array_left(anyarray, anyelement) 
  RETURNS anyarray LANGUAGE sql IMMUTABLE AS
$$SELECT ARRAY (SELECT * FROM unnest($1) a WHERE a < $2 ORDER BY 1)$$;

-- split right array at given element
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f_array_right(anyarray, anyelement) 
  RETURNS anyarray LANGUAGE sql IMMUTABLE AS
$$SELECT ARRAY (SELECT * FROM unnest($1) a WHERE a >= $2 ORDER BY 1)$$;

Query

This does all the rest:

WITH u AS (  -- identify candidates
   SELECT m.id, rec_id, m.val, m.valid_on, m.valid_during
        , u.val AS u_val, u.valid_on AS u_valid_on
   FROM   master  m
   JOIN   updates u USING (rec_id)
   WHERE  m.val <> u.val
   AND    m.valid_during @> u.valid_on
   FOR    UPDATE  -- lock for update
   )
, upd1 AS (  -- case 2: no overlap, no split
   UPDATE master m  -- shrink old row
   SET    valid_during = daterange(lower(u.valid_during), u.u_valid_on)
   FROM   u
   WHERE  u.id = m.id
   AND    u.u_valid_on > m.valid_on[array_upper(m.valid_on, 1)]
   RETURNING m.id
   )
, ins1 AS (  -- insert new row
   INSERT INTO master (rec_id, val, valid_on, valid_during)
   SELECT u.rec_id, u.u_val, ARRAY[u.u_valid_on]
        , daterange(u.u_valid_on, upper(u.valid_during))
   FROM   upd1
   JOIN   u USING (id)
   )
, upd2 AS (  -- case 3: overlap, need to split row
   UPDATE master m  -- shrink to first half
   SET    valid_during = daterange(lower(u.valid_during), u.u_valid_on)
        , valid_on = f_array_left(u.valid_on, u.u_valid_on)
   FROM   u
   LEFT   JOIN upd1 USING (id)
   WHERE  upd1.id IS NULL  -- all others
   AND    u.id = m.id
   RETURNING m.id, f_array_right(u.valid_on, u.u_valid_on) AS arr_right
   )
INSERT INTO master (rec_id, val, valid_on, valid_during)
          -- new row
SELECT u.rec_id, u.u_val, ARRAY[u.u_valid_on]
     , daterange(u.u_valid_on, upd2.arr_right[1])
FROM   upd2
JOIN   u USING (id)
UNION ALL  -- second half of old row
SELECT u.rec_id, u.val, upd2.arr_right
     , daterange(upd2.arr_right[1], upper(u.valid_during))
FROM   upd2
JOIN   u USING (id);

SQL Fiddle.

Notes

• You need to understand the concept of data-modifying CTEs (writeable CTEs), before you touch this. Judging from the code you provided, you know your way around Postgres.

  • Are SELECT type queries the only type that can be nested?

• FOR UPDATE is to avoid race conditions with concurrent write access. If you are the only user writing to the tables, you don't need it.

• I took a piece of paper and drew a timeline so not to get lost in all of this.

• Each row is only updated / inserted once, and operations are simple and roughly optimized. No expensive window functions. This should perform well. Much faster than your previous approach in any case.

• It would be a bit less confusing if you'd use distinct column names for u.valid_on and m.valid_on, which are related but different things.

• I compute the right half of the split array in the RETURNING clause of CTE upd2: f_array_right(u.valid_on, u.u_valid_on) AS arr_right, because I need it several times in the next step. This is a (legal) trick to save one more CTE.

• As for solutions that don't involve unnesting the master table: You have to unnest the array valid_on either way, to split it, at least as long as it's not sorted. Also, your helper function arraymin() is already unnesting it anyway.