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 <robjsarg...@gmail.com
<mailto:robjsarg...@gmail.com>> 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
<http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Is-it-reasonable-to-store-double-arrays-of-30K-elements-td5790562.html>
[2] char array
<http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/COPY-v-java-performance-comparison-tc5798389.html>
