Re: Use Postgres as a column store by creating one table per column
Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.performance |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Greetings, * Lev Kokotov ([email protected]) 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 that, but it requires sacrificing what the tuple header gives you- visibility information, along with some other things. The question will be if that's acceptable or not. > I'm thinking since Postgres stores tables in continuous blocks of 16MB each > (I think that's the default page size?) I would get efficient reads and > with parallel queries I could benefit from multiple cores. The page size in PG is 8k, not 16MB. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 819 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJc6EgmAAoJEO1sijiDR2RVhV0P/3kLAGuiHDIUfWHpWJ6MwU0y Slbl5z5zjEcovUxnzGqnpNTgxemWEaXFpBnoWc9WTlhyeum564P1lwLQPOxzy/+U dD9MdUbFXTD7mzBPzS43oAGCmx3hax1Ncp8hXNkOJpMi+RMuEfyHvAZeZ66Y/VGX 1IVk06bjFk6zrAjlbto4z33Xo9bzH4K0P+PZIfmcqXxSzwokD9fT1fvMgltCEhDM o2lIskawt25nMQbFRNYIq+r0U8jeg77KfeF8K8+0XFQ9ZemM6oKW5IpTQr4hbOdY 7fPWDJKTIJEn+eFWJsndWEb8/fqmZnT3l+tZn8aLOt9w+Xo4vbWZCbW3CbHg5SZ5 FuZKxblE/NJzqayZmZcXvySjL1NEcncQDikWvDioT0Hu3kYbuBYxCYuFL/WGJus3 uI7m8gg2KBIbVQpchbQ0wdg6ogPeo7k+gwl5zSMC0aGwPqkmQRZKIbW8jCVknuIS B2LAsog0ByMDk/rlExUXSptOHPLo1Z406vCpAI/Ye2qaRm4NDo6Ry9GyTuQ5dqmO fPv4s10u2y8i7qgp9MzR5JGa6kxoq9AvA/oQguKhmHZ7W2fgJPMmHEhvrKnqxRCd Ie21Xqnz+7ovBV2niGu2NrX/RQW9MEY8RtBJKnMXItK2YNWR1k8RTRz5rybZyIFj AFfDH3kZNClALQM2UXrJ =3DC/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----