t; On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 4:40 PM Erik Sjoblom
> wrote:
> >> I hear what you are saying Tom and what I have read says that it would
> >> take 24 + 12 x N bytes for the array.
>
> > Whatever you are reading, or your interpretation of it, is flawed.
>
> I wonde
15808 41467904 4248 10.4
1 1000 1015808 87080960 8810 8.7
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 6:50 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Erik Sjoblom writes:
> > I don't see why it's using 50 bytes per element. There should be just one
> > 24 byte header for the array, not one per element
>
>
22, 2024 at 6:34 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Erik Sjoblom writes:
> > I’m observing a storage behavior with arrays in a table that differs from
> > my expectations, and I’d appreciate your insights. I was to store key
> value
> > pairs in a very dense data model. I don'
Hello PostgreSQL developers,
I’m observing a storage behavior with arrays in a table that differs from
my expectations, and I’d appreciate your insights. I was to store key value
pairs in a very dense data model. I don't haver the requirement of search
so that's why I was thinking an array of a co
