Greetings, * Lev Kokotov (lev.kokotov@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Is it efficient to use Postgres as a column store by creating one table per > column? Short answer is no, not in a traditional arrangement, anyway. The tuple overhead would be extremely painful. It's possible to improve on that, but it requires sacrificing what the tuple header gives you- visibility information, along with some other things. The question will be if that's acceptable or not. > I'm thinking since Postgres stores tables in continuous blocks of 16MB each > (I think that's the default page size?) I would get efficient reads and > with parallel queries I could benefit from multiple cores. The page size in PG is 8k, not 16MB. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
