From: | Peter Hunsberger <peter(dot)hunsberger(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | marcin mank <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Partitioned tables as a poor mans columnar index? |
Date: | 2009-10-16 21:01:01 |
Message-ID: | cc159a4a0910161401g1f84011nc46a58bd6dcab43c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 3:31 PM, marcin mank <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Peter Hunsberger
> <peter(dot)hunsberger(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> The basic problem I have is that I have some tables that are
>> potentially very long (100,000's to millions of rows) and very skinny,
>
>> and I end up with maybe a total of 12 bits of data in each row.
>
> Are You aware that there are some 20-ish bytes of metadata for each
> row? saving 4 bytes buys You nothing. Give it up.
No, the metadata is a whole 'nother problem. I'm just talking about
fk relationships here. This isn't an isolated issue within this
particular domain. If you where to use a conventional table design,
then once the rest of the associated tables get built along with their
associated indexes you'd be looking at in the order of a terabyte for
this half of the DB...
--
Peter Hunsberger
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-10-16 21:51:34 | Re: db not dumping properly, or at least not restoring |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-10-16 20:55:06 | Re: Urgent Help required |