From: | greg(at)turnstep(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Compare rows |
Date: | 2003-10-10 16:44:21 |
Message-ID: | 1756cdfe0672f1cab443627e1fd7a4b3@biglumber.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> The most efficient way for you to store data would be like this:
> main table
> id address
> 3 67.92
> 7 69.5
>
> child table
> id value_type value
> 3 uptime 0.3
> 3 memory 37
> 7 uptime 1.1
> 7 memory 15
Actually, a more efficient* way is this:
value table
vid value_name
1 uptime
2 memory
child table
id vid value
3 1 0.3
3 2 37
7 1 1.1
7 2 15
* Still not necessarily the *most* efficient, depending on how the
values are distributed, but it sure beats storing "uptime" over
and over again. :)
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200310101243
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: http://www.turnstep.com/pgp.html
iD8DBQE/huHxvJuQZxSWSsgRAiMNAKD4kQCwdv3fXyEFUu64mymtf567dwCcCKd5
ZzJaV7wjfs00DBT62bVpHhs=
=32b8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff | 2003-10-10 16:55:42 | Re: PostgreSQL Scalable ? |
Previous Message | Bill Moran | 2003-10-10 16:42:04 | Re: One or more processor ? |