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

Re: Very large tables

From: "William Temperley" <willtemperley(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Very large tables
Date: 2008-11-28 16:18:37
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
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?


In response to


pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Ioana DanesDate: 2008-11-28 16:19:20
Subject: Re: Using postgres.log file for replication
Previous:From: Ioana DanesDate: 2008-11-28 16:10:03
Subject: Re: Using postgres.log file for replication

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group