P Kishor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
* P Kishor (punk.kish@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
Three. At least, in my case, the overhead is too much. My data are
single bytes, but the smallest data type in Pg is smallint (2 bytes).
That, plus the per row overhead adds to a fair amount of overhead.
My first reaction to this would be- have you considered aggregating the
data before putting it into the database in such a way that you put more
than 1 byte of data on each row..? That could possibly reduce the
number of rows you have by quite a bit and also reduce the impact of the
per-tuple overhead in PG..
each row is half a dozen single byte values, so, it is actually 6
bytes per row (six columns).
Hmm six chars - this would not perchance be bio (sequence) or geospacial data?
If so then there are specialist lists out there that can help.
Also quite a few people use Pg for this data and there are some very neat Pg add ons.
Jacqui
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
