On 09/16/2010 05:26 PM, Aram Fingal wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 4:37 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 09/16/10 10:44 AM, Aram Fingal wrote:
I have thought about that but later on, when we do the full sized
experiments, there will be too many rows for Excel to handle.
if you insist on this transposing, won't that mean you'll end up with
more columns than SQL can/should handle?
No. The organization in Excel is much more efficient of the total number
of cells used but not much good for querying. When I transpose it for
use in the database (or pivot it in Excel), it actually multiplies the
number of rows. So, if the version with separate columns for each
subject has X rows and Y columns, you get X * Y rows in the database
version. For example, If there are 100 subjects, and 1000 drug/dose
combinations. Then the Excel version has 102 columns (drug, dose and a
column for each subject) and 1000 rows. The database (or pivoted)
version would have 4 columns (subject, drug, dose and response) and
100,000 rows. Excel maxes out at 65,535 rows and PostgreSQL has no limit.
I think excel 2007 can handle more than 65,535 rows.
The subjects, by the way, are not people, they are cancer cell tissue
cultures in 384-well plates, handled by robots. That's how we can do so
many drug/dose combinations. We'll do even more in the future.
-Aram
--
Stephen Clark
NetWolves
Sr. Software Engineer III
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.netwolves.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
