On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Decibel! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2008, at 3:15 PM, Jeff Gentry wrote:
>>
>> So I've seen the header file where the 1600 column limit is defined
>
>
> IIRC, that limit is directly related to block size in the header, so one
> possible fix is to increa
On Aug 12, 2008, at 3:15 PM, Jeff Gentry wrote:
So I've seen the header file where the 1600 column limit is defined
IIRC, that limit is directly related to block size in the header, so
one possible fix is to increase block size. AFAIK anything up to 64K
blocks should be safe.
BTW, keep i
> The
> real problem lies with the columns (biological samples) in that it is
> rarely the case that we'll have multiple matrices with overlap in columns
Should each configuration have its own table, while inheriting from a common
base table?
--
Scott Ribe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.killerbyte
On Aug 12, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Jeff Gentry wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Steve Atkins wrote:
What operations do you perform on the data? If it's just store and
retrieve, can you serialize them into a bytea (or xml) field?
Store & retrieve although we take advantage of the fact that it's in
a D
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> The generic solution without making too much work is to store similar
> data types in an arrayed type in the db.
That's a good idea. I'll have to play w/ this one. Thanks.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Steve Atkins wrote:
> What operations do you perform on the data? If it's just store and
> retrieve, can you serialize them into a bytea (or xml) field?
Store & retrieve although we take advantage of the fact that it's in a DB
to allow for subsetting (done at the postgres leve
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Jeff Gentry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there ...
>
> I recently discovered that there is a hard cap on the # of columns, being
> at 1600. I also understand that it is generally unfathomable that anyone
> would ever feel limited by that number ... however I've
On Aug 12, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Jeff Gentry wrote:
Hi there ...
I recently discovered that there is a hard cap on the # of columns,
being
at 1600. I also understand that it is generally unfathomable that
anyone
would ever feel limited by that number ... however I've managed to
bump
into i
Hi there ...
I recently discovered that there is a hard cap on the # of columns, being
at 1600. I also understand that it is generally unfathomable that anyone
would ever feel limited by that number ... however I've managed to bump
into it myself and was looking to see if anyone had advice on how
