Re: Altering array(composite-types) without breaking code when inserting them and similar questions

Maybe the char array link is wrong ? I don't think an array of arrays is
good for my case. I'll probably go for json or separate table since it
looks it's not possible to use composite-types.

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Rob Sargentg <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Sorry, I should not have top-posted (Dang iPhone). Continued below:
>
> On 04/20/2014 05:54 PM, Dorian Hoxha wrote:
>
> Because i always query the whole row, and in the other way(many tables) i
> will always join + have other indexes.
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:
>
>> Why do you think you need an array of theType v. a dependent table of
>> theType. This tack is of course immune to to most future type changess.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> Interesting. Of course any decent mapper will return "the whole
> row". And would it be less disk intensive as an array of "struct ( where
> struct is implemented as an array)". From other threads [1] [2] I've come
> to understand the datatype overhead per native type will be applied per
> type instance per array element.
>
> [1] 30K floats<http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Is-it-reasonable-to-store-double-arrays-of-30K-elements-td5790562.html>
> [2] char array<http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/COPY-v-java-performance-comparison-tc5798389.html>
>