Colin Wetherbee <cww@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Let's say I have a users table that holds about 15 columns of data about
> each user.
> If I write one Perl sub for each operation on the table (e.g. one that
> gets the username and password hash, another that gets the last name and
> first name, etc.), there will be a whole lot of subs, each of which
> performs one very specific task.
> If I write one larger Perl sub that grabs the whole row, and then I deal
> with the contents of the row in Perl, ignoring columns as I please, it
> will require fewer subs and, in turn, imply cleaner code.
> My concern is that I don't know what efficiency I would be forfeiting on
> the PostgreSQL side of the application by always querying entire rows if
> my transaction occurs entirely within a single table.
Not nearly as much as you would lose anytime you perform two independent
queries to fetch different fields of the same row. What you really need
to worry about here is making sure you only fetch the row once
regardless of which field(s) you want out of it. It's not clear to me
whether your second design concept handles that, but if it does then
I think it'd be fine.
The only case where custom field sets might be important is if you have
fields that are wide enough to potentially get TOASTed (ie more than a
kilobyte or so apiece). Then it'd be worth the trouble to not fetch
those when you don't need them. But that apparently isn't the case
with this table.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: 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
