Maybe the char array link is wrong ? I don't think an array of arrays is good for my case. I'll probably go for json or separate table since it looks it's not possible to use composite-types.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Rob Sargentg <robjsarg...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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>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> >
