From: | Wim Bertels <wim(dot)bertels(at)ucll(dot)be> |
---|---|
To: | "mail(at)joeconway(dot)com" <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "pat(dot)trainor(at)gmail(dot)com" <pat(dot)trainor(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: How To: A large [2D] matrix, 100,000+ rows/columns |
Date: | 2023-06-09 14:00:27 |
Message-ID: | 4bb77358282da0509415de05079f118ef73f7033.camel@ucll.be |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Joe Conway schreef op vr 09-06-2023 om 09:16 [-0400]:
> On 6/8/23 22:17, Pat Trainor wrote:
> > I need to have a very large matrix to maintain & query, and if not
> > (1,600 column limit), then how could such data be broken down to
> > work?
>
> 100,000 rows *
> 100,000 columns *
> 8 bytes (assuming float8)
> = about 80 GB per matrix if I got the math correct.
>
>
based on my personal experience i would not use postgres in the case
where you need many columns, u can work around this with json for
example, but it will likely end up being less easy to work with
as Joe replied: R or Python are probably a better fit,
or another database that can easily handle a lot of columns,
postgres is a great database, but not when you need a lot of columns
(as you noted+:
there might be another backend storage for postgres that can handle
this better (or in the future?), but i don't think there is one;
also there is the header for which standard 8K is provisioned anyway,
so that is the first bottleneck (you can change this value, if you
compile postgres yourself)
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/limits.html )
Wim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Erik Wienhold | 2023-06-09 14:12:38 | Re: How To: A large [2D] matrix, 100,000+ rows/columns |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2023-06-09 13:16:02 | Re: How To: A large [2D] matrix, 100,000+ rows/columns |