On 22/05/19 4:28 PM, Lev Kokotov wrote:
Is it efficient to use Postgres as a column store by creating one
table per column?
I would query it with something like `[...] UNION SELECT value AS
FROM WHERE value = UNION [...]` to build a row.
I'm thinking since Postgres stores tabl
Greetings,
* Lev Kokotov (lev.koko...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Is it efficient to use Postgres as a column store by creating one table per
> column?
Short answer is no, not in a traditional arrangement, anyway. The tuple
overhead would be extremely painful. It's possible to improve on t
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 01:08:42AM -0400, George Neuner wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2019 21:28:07 -0700, Lev Kokotov
wrote:
Is it efficient to use Postgres as a column store by creating one
table per
column?
I would query it with something like `[...] UNION SELECT value AS
FROM WHERE value
On Tue, 21 May 2019 21:28:07 -0700, Lev Kokotov
wrote:
>Is it efficient to use Postgres as a column store by creating one
table per
>column?
>
>I would query it with something like `[...] UNION SELECT value AS
>FROM WHERE value = UNION [...]` to build a row.
I think you me
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 09:28:07PM -0700, Lev Kokotov wrote:
> Is it efficient to use Postgres as a column store by creating one table per
> column?
>
> I would query it with something like `[...] UNION SELECT value AS
> FROM WHERE value = UNION [...]` to build a row.
I thin
Is it efficient to use Postgres as a column store by creating one table per
column?
I would query it with something like `[...] UNION SELECT value AS
FROM WHERE value = UNION [...]` to build a row.
I'm thinking since Postgres stores tables in continuous blocks of 16MB each
(I think that&
