Re: Very large tables

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> William Temperley escribió:
>> 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[]?

I guess that would be the obvious choice... Just a lot of storage
space reqired I imagine.

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> 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 :)

Any more normalized and I'd have 216 billion rows! Add an index and
I'd have - well, a far bigger table than 432 million rows each
containing a float array - I think?

Really I'm worried about reducing storage space and network overhead
- therefore a nicely compressed chunk of binary would be perfect for
the 500 values - wouldn't it?

Will