From: | Randall Skelton <skelton(at)brutus(dot)uwaterloo(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Storage cost of a null column |
Date: | 2004-04-02 17:18:47 |
Message-ID: | CD28D203-84C9-11D8-BEF7-000393C92230@brutus.uwaterloo.ca |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
What is the storage cost of a null entry in a column? i.e. does a null
entry of type integer, float8 or text consume the same amount of
storage as one that is filled? I ask because I have satellite data
which is transmitted via a dodgy RF link that drops data packets. This
means I have a number of columns in a table that are null. Moreover,
the operations people decided to use a compression scheme whereby
non-changing bit/integer values are not output at regular intervals
which also adds a considerable number of null entries into the columns.
Because of this, we made a decision that we would have hundreds of 2
column tables (timestamp, value) and use unions, intersections, and
joins to get what was needed. Unfortunately, this has made application
programming a real nightmare as we are often forced to reconstruct a
snapshot frame for the range of times either in C or have the app
create temporary tables in SQL and insert the relevant data prior to
selecting it. As it stands, we've ordered a new disk array and
provided that the storage costs are not that high, I will probably be
reorganising all this next week. If anyone has any other suggestions,
I'd be very keen to hear them.
Cheers,
Randall
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Manfred Koizar | 2004-04-02 18:05:01 | Re: Large DB |
Previous Message | wespvp | 2004-04-02 17:08:21 | Re: Compound keys and foreign constraints |