Re: Altering array(composite-types) without breaking code when inserting them and similar questions

Rob Sargentg <robjsargent@xxxxxxxxx> · Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:02:51 -0600



    Sorry, I should not have top-posted
      (Dang iPhone).  Continued below:

      On 04/20/2014 05:54 PM, Dorian Hoxha wrote:

    
      Because i always query the whole row, and in the
        other way(many tables) i will always join + have other indexes.

      
        On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Rob
          Sargent <robjsargent@xxxxxxxxx>
          wrote:

          
              Why do you think you need an array of theType v. a
                dependent table of theType. This tack is of course
                immune to to most future type changess. 
              

                Sent from my iPhone
              
                
    Interesting.  Of course any decent mapper will return "the whole
    row". And would it be less disk intensive as an array of "struct (
    where struct is implemented as an array)".  From other threads [1]
    [2] I've come to understand the datatype overhead per native type
    will be applied per type instance per array element.

    
    [1] 30K
      floats

    [2] char
      array