Re: Storing thousands of csv files in postgresql

>I think the add/remove column requirement alone justifies NOT using
files. The CSV approach will temp the system to handle some versioning
nonsense. Using tables also provides some protection against the inevitable
garbage data in the CSVs.

Indeed, in addition to that all the features related to types/constraints
and links to other tables* available in postgresql would be lost (that
would need to be re-implemented in the app layer).
Thanks Rob!

*: on the pros, I forgot to add the "on delete cascade on foreign keys"
that is very welcome too.

Le mar. 15 févr. 2022 à 22:13, Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> a écrit :

>
> I don't think you need a "federated" postgres network like Citus at all -
> I think this solves a different use case. For your design problem, I think
> that having a bunch of independent Pg servers would be fine - as long as
> you don't need to run searches across CSV tables stored across different
> databases (in which case you do need index/search federation of some kind).
>
> Regarding Erik Brandsberg's point about XFS, I think this is a useful
> alternative approach, if I understand the idea. Instead of storing your CSV
> files in Postgres, just store them as CSV files on the file system. You can
> still store the schemas in Pg, but each schema would just point to a file
> in the file system and you'd manipulate the files in the filesystem using
> whatever language is appropriate (I find ruby to be excellent for managing
> CSV files). If you need to index those files to run searches against them,
> I'd direct your attention to https://prestodb.io/ which is the core
> technology that runs Amazon Athena. This allows you to search CSV files
> with various schema (among other data bindings). So you might find that Pg
> as your schema storage, XFS (or any modern FS) to store large numbers of
> CSV files, and Presto/Athena to index/search those files, along with some
> CSV management language (like Ruby or something even higher level) to
> manage the data.
>
> I think if I were dealing with less than 10k CSV files (and therefore Pg
> tables), I might use Pg, and if I were dealing with 10k+ files, I'd start
> looking at file systems + Presto. But that's a WAG.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> I think the add/remove column requirement alone justifies NOT using
> files. The CSV approach will temp the system to handle some versioning
> nonsense. Using tables also provides some protection against the inevitable
> garbage data in the CSVs.
>