Re: [OT] "advanced" database design (long)

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Alex Turner" <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Lewis Cunningham" <lewisc(at)rocketmail(dot)com>, "vladimir konrad" <vk(at)dsl(dot)pipex(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [OT] "advanced" database design (long)
Date: 2008-02-04 12:34:49
Message-ID: 87ve54hpcm.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


"Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:

> On Feb 3, 2008 10:14 PM, Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> give you a lot less pages to load than building a table with say 90 columns
>> in it that are all null, which would result in better rather than worse
>> performance?

Fwiw Postgres stores NULLs quite efficiently. Those 90 columns, all of which
are null would take 12 bytes.

> But you're giving us a choice between two bad methodologies.

But I probably agree with Scott. It depends though. There are cases which are
inherently awkward for which you will end up with either EAV or 90 mostly NULL
columns.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Pundt 2008-02-04 12:51:44 Re: "pg_ctl: cannot be run as root"
Previous Message Csaba Nagy 2008-02-04 12:32:18 Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Certification