# Problems migrating InfluxQL query to Flux **URL:** \ **Category:** Fluxlang\ **Tags:** influxdb, influxql, query, flux, performance\ **Created:** [July 8, 2021, 9:44am UTC](https://community.influxdata.com/t/problems-migrating-influxql-query-to-flux/20677 "2021-07-08T09:44:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![danielgonnet](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex023/user_avatar/community.influxdata.com/danielgonnet/32/5708_2.png) [@danielgonnet](https://community.influxdata.com/u/danielgonnet)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2021, 9:44am UTC](https://community.influxdata.com/t/problems-migrating-influxql-query-to-flux/20677/1 "2021-07-08T09:44:18Z")
Hi, we are in the midst of migrating a query that generates a data export. Our data is made up of a measurement that represent the customer, a single tag that represents the device the data is coming from and a number of fields (in the tenths) that represent several sensor and cumulative values. An example would be: ```auto 11EB768FB98C4270B6D16BAEE17CF0DD,deviceId=78767 EM1_Energy=124642,EM1_Energy_Tariff1=0,EM1_Energy_Tariff2=0,EM1_Flow=361,EM1_Flow_Temperature=64.18,EM1_Power=8.1,EM1_Return_Temperature=44.44,EM1_Serial=224212,EM1_Uptime=3192,EM1_Volume=4237,HC1_FlowTemperature=34.64,HC1_FlowTemperature_Ref=11,HC1_ReturnTemperature=30.96,HC1_ReturnTemperature_Extra=192,HC1_ReturnTemperature_Ref=40,HC1_RoomTemperature=192,HC1_RoomTemperature_Limit=18,HC2_FlowTemperature=49.3,HC2_FlowTemperature_Ref=52,HC2_ReturnTemperature=192,HC2_ReturnTemperature_Extra=0.01,HC2_ReturnTemperature_Ref=50,Outdoor_Temperature=27.64,Primary1_FlowTemperature=192,Primary1_ReturnTemperature=192 1625492641215000000 ``` Over this series, we run a query that performs a variety of aggregations over several of the fields for a subset of devices for a time window. The aggregations can be min, max, first, last, average and delta (the difference between the value of a field at the end of window minus the value of a field at the beginning of the window). The InfluxQL query looks like: ```auto select Min("Outdoor_Temperature") as "0", (Last("Outdoor_Temperature") - First("Outdoor_Temperature")) AS "1" from "11111111111111111111111111111111" where ("deviceId" = '179474' or "deviceId" = '237129' or "deviceId" = '237140' or "deviceId" = '254415' or "deviceId" = '323126' or "deviceId" = '323127' or "deviceId" = '5312' or "deviceId" = '53753' or "deviceId" = '999000037') and time >= 1617228000000ms and time <= 1619819999999ms group by "deviceId",time(60m) fill(previous) ``` We tried with this flux query: ```auto doRename = (t=<-, name= "") => t |> map(fn: (r) => ({ r with _field: name })) data = from(bucket: "development_readouts/high") |> range(start: time(v: "2021-03-31T22:00:00.000Z"), stop: time(v: "2021-04-30T21:59:59.999Z")) |> filter(fn: (r) => r._measurement == "11111111111111111111111111111111") |> filter(fn: (r) => r.deviceId == "179474" or r.deviceId == "237129" or r.deviceId == "237140" or r.deviceId == "254415" or r.deviceId == "323126" or r.deviceId == "323127" or r.deviceId == "5312" or r.deviceId == "53753" or r.deviceId == "999000037") t0 = data |> filter(fn: (r) => r._field == "EM1_Power") |> aggregateWindow(every: duration(v: "60m"), fn: first, timeSrc: "_start") |> difference(nonNegative: false, columns: ["_value"]) |> doRename(name: "0") t1 = data |> filter(fn: (r) => r._field == "Outdoor_Temperature") |> aggregateWindow(every: duration(v: "60m"), fn: min) |> doRename(name: "1") union(tables: [t0, t1]) |> pivot( rowKey:["deviceId", "_time"], columnKey: ["_field"], valueColumn: "_value" ) |> group(columns: ["deviceId"], mode:"by") |> drop(columns: ["_start", "_stop", "_measurement"]) |> rename(columns: {_time: "t"}) |> yield(name: "detailed") ``` But we have two problems: 1. Whenever we select more than one field (we can have multiple multiple aggregations over the same field) results come “out of order” ![Screenshot 2021-07-08 at 11.39.36](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex023/uploads/influxdata/original/2X/6/6bfd3d2f22c2c331d837eed5c5126c2a9ca9e8a1.png) ```auto doRename = (t=<-, name= "") => t |> map(fn: (r) => ({ r with _field: name })) data = from(bucket: "development_readouts/high") |> range(start: time(v: "2021-03-31T22:00:00.000Z"), stop: time(v: "2021-04-30T21:59:59.999Z")) |> filter(fn: (r) => r._measurement == "11111111111111111111111111111111") |> filter(fn: (r) => r.deviceId == "179474" or r.deviceId == "237129" or r.deviceId == "237140" or r.deviceId == "254415" or r.deviceId == "323126" or r.deviceId == "323127" or r.deviceId == "5312" or r.deviceId == "53753" or r.deviceId == "999000037") t0 = data |> filter(fn: (r) => r._field == "EM1_Power") |> aggregateWindow(every: duration(v: "60m"), fn: first, timeSrc: "_start") |> difference(nonNegative: false, columns: ["_value"]) |> doRename(name: "0") t1 = data |> filter(fn: (r) => r._field == "EM1_Power") |> aggregateWindow(every: duration(v: "60m"), fn: last) |> doRename(name: "1") t2 = data |> filter(fn: (r) => r._field == "EM1_Power") |> aggregateWindow(every: duration(v: "60m"), fn: first) |> doRename(name: "2") t3 = data |> filter(fn: (r) => r._field == "Outdoor_Temperature") |> aggregateWindow(every: duration(v: "60m"), fn: min) |> doRename(name: "3") union(tables: [t0, t1, t2, t3]) |> pivot( rowKey:["deviceId", "_time"], columnKey: ["_field"], valueColumn: "_value" ) |> group(columns: ["deviceId"], mode:"by") |> drop(columns: ["_start", "_stop", "_measurement"]) |> rename(columns: {_time: "t"}) |> yield(name: "detailed") ``` 1. Performance of the flux query is much, much worse than it InfluxQL counterpart. InfluxQL 184ms with correct results. Flux 2537s and the results come “out of order” Can we get some hints on what are we doing wrong with this fux query? Thanks in advance ---
**Author:** ![Anaisdg](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex023/user_avatar/community.influxdata.com/anaisdg/32/6401_2.png) [@Anaisdg](https://community.influxdata.com/u/Anaisdg)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2021, 4:48pm UTC](https://community.influxdata.com/t/problems-migrating-influxql-query-to-flux/20677/3 "2021-07-13T16:48:14Z")
Addressed here: > [@Migrating FluxQL with multiple aggregations to Flux](https://community.influxdata.com/t/migrating-fluxql-with-multiple-aggregations-to-flux/20675/7): > > Don’t be sorry. I know they do make performance improvements and for that I am thankful. However flux is not a beta or “an alternative” anymore. Is the current default and most supported way of querying your cloud offering. And having that abysmal difference in performance with a language that is “in its way out” (and you are very welcome to call this one out by saying that the language will get new features in the future) after a long time in beta and a nice production run. I could understan…