From: | János <janos(dot)lobb(at)yale(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, jarednevans(at)yahoo(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: benefits of an Array Column? |
Date: | 2004-06-21 13:43:32 |
Message-ID: | FC1CE866-C388-11D8-9E51-000A95ED10EE@yale.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Is there not a speed advantage using arrays in the right place instead
of tables ?
János
On Jun 20, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> jarednevans(at)yahoo(dot)com writes:
>>> I fail to see the scenarios where this would be an useful feature.
>>> How
>>> is this better than linking to another table that could serve the
>>> same
>>> purpose?
>
>> I think probably the rule of thumb is that arrays work when you have
>> data items that have an array-like structure, but that substructure
>> isn't interesting from the standpoint of the database structure.
>
> I agree, but would add that arrays are often very useful as
> non-persistent structures for processing data, e.g. in PL/pgSQL
> functions.
>
> Joe
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
>
------------------------------------------
"The shortest route between two points is the middleman" Ayn Rand
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher.Becker | 2004-06-21 20:24:31 | formatting timestamptz for more precision? |
Previous Message | ghaverla | 2004-06-20 23:08:22 | Re: libpq.so |