Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Very large tables

From: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "William Temperley" <willtemperley(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Very large tables
Date: 2008-11-28 16:03:52
Message-ID: 2f4958ff0811280803o6849d83fjaeed7a4b69aa8586@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>wrote:

> William Temperley escribió:
>
> > I've been asked to store a grid of 1.5 million geographical locations,
> > fine. However, associated with each point are 288 months, and
> > associated with each month are 500 float values (a distribution
> > curve), i.e. 1,500,000 * 288 * 500 = 216 billion values :).
> >
> > So a 216 billion row table is probably out of the question. I was
> > considering storing the 500 floats as bytea.
>
> What about a float array, float[]?
>
you seriously don't want to use bytea to store anything, especially if the
datatype matching exists in db of choice.
also, consider partitioning it :)

Try to follow rules of normalization, as with that sort of data - less
storage space used, the better :)
And well, I would look for a machine with rather fast raid storage :) (and
spacious too).



-- 
GJ

In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Ioana DanesDate: 2008-11-28 16:10:03
Subject: Re: Using postgres.log file for replication
Previous:From: Adrian KlaverDate: 2008-11-28 15:54:54
Subject: Re: Trigger before delete does fire before, but delete doesn't not happen

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group