Antonios Christofides <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Why 25 seconds for appending an element? Would you give us a specific test case, rather than a vague description of what you're doing? > (2) I also tried using a large (80M) text instead (i.e. instead of > storing an array of lines, I store a huge plain text file). What > surprised me is that I can get the 'tail' of the file (using > substring) in only around one second, although it is transparently > compressed (to 17M). It doesn't decompress the entire string, does > it? Does it store it somehow chunked? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/static/storage-toast.html > What I'm trying to do is find a good way to store timeseries. A > timeseries is essentially a series of (date, value) pairs, and more > specifically it is an array of records, each record consisting of > three items: date TIMESTAMP, value DOUBLE PRECISION, flags TEXT. In practically every case, the answer is to use a table with rows of that form. SQL just isn't designed to make it easy to do something else. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
