| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "\"=?ISO-8859-1?Q? \" Rodrigo_E(dot) _De_Le=F3n_Plicet \" ?=\"" <rdeleonp(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Madison Kelly" <linux(at)alteeve(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Optimizing a VIEW |
| Date: | 2008-08-20 18:18:33 |
| Message-ID: | 3072.1219256313@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> On Aug 16, 2008, at 9:19 PM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>> Awesome!!!! Any comments on the performance of hstore?
> I've looked at it but haven't actually used it. One thing I wish it
> did was to keep a catalog somewhere of the "names" that it's seen so
> that it wasn't storing them as in-line text. If you have even
> moderate-length names and are storing small values you quickly end up
> wasting a ton of space.
> BTW, now that you can build arrays of composite types, that might be
> an easy way to deal with this stuff. Create a composite type of
> (name_id, value) and store that in an array.
If you're worried about storage space, I wouldn't go for arrays of
composite :-(. The tuple header overhead is horrendous, almost
certainly a lot worse than hstore.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-20 18:28:18 | Re: Slow query with a lot of data |
| Previous Message | Scott Carey | 2008-08-20 18:06:06 | Re: Slow query with a lot of data |