Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vAbH0-003laR-7o for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2025 21:49:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vAbGz-00Chgl-4s for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2025 21:49:04 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vAbGy-00Chgc-QO for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2025 21:49:03 +0000 Received: from mail.appl-ecosys.com ([50.126.108.78]) by makus.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vAbGw-002g3j-0n for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Sun, 19 Oct 2025 21:49:02 +0000 Received: from salmo.appl-ecosys.com (salmo.appl-ecosys.com [192.168.55.1]) by mail.appl-ecosys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38AD92A14D6 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2025 14:49:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2025 14:49:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Rich Shepard To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Arrays vs separate tables In-Reply-To: <01020199fe3f6030-5d953b42-e08d-4782-9da3-3d635f5445af-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <16c131f2-122e-2b9-6478-55b418201255@appl-ecosys.com> References: <162e5330-861c-ecc7-45c1-aaa1aff26c88@appl-ecosys.com> <01020199fe3f6030-5d953b42-e08d-4782-9da3-3d635f5445af-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On Sun, 19 Oct 2025, Ray O'Donnell wrote: > My experience of doing something similar was that arrays work very well > for the use-case you describe, as long as you don't have to search inside > the arrays... I found that, if you have to search for a specific value > inside an array, then performance really goes out the window. Mind you, > clever use of an index would probably help here. Ray, So far searching has not been an issue so I'll keep the status quo. Thanks, Rich