Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dLq0U-0005gS-5o for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 12:05:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dLq0S-0006iS-Ux for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 12:05:40 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dLq0S-0006hg-Fe for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 12:05:40 +0000 Received: from tamriel.snowman.net ([2001:470:e38f::11]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dLq0P-00007h-Qc for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 12:05:39 +0000 Received: by tamriel.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3C96E5F795; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 08:05:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 08:05:37 -0400 From: Stephen Frost To: Lutz Fischer Cc: "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Using array instead of sub table (storage and speed) Message-ID: <20170616120537.GJ1769@tamriel.snowman.net> References: <35a68a4e-9567-dc48-5d76-078112e558b3@ed.ac.uk> <20170615133704.GQ1769@tamriel.snowman.net> <867b4235-95ba-6910-8224-824f75f7ce99@ed.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5TZBROn01cl7bgIF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <867b4235-95ba-6910-8224-824f75f7ce99@ed.ac.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org --5TZBROn01cl7bgIF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Greeting, Lutz! Please don't top-post on the PG mailing lists, our style is to relpy in-line. * Lutz Fischer (l.fischer@ed.ac.uk) wrote: > I often need some data from [s] where I don't care about [sp]. So in > how far does having these arrays a part of [s] would make these > queries slower. Or would be better to store the array data in a > separate table e.g. have [s] as it is now but turn [sp] into an > array aggregated table. If that's the case then you would probably be better off putting the arrays into an independent table, yes. Thanks! Stephen --5TZBROn01cl7bgIF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJZQ8mQAAoJEO1sijiDR2RVjB4P/1n3WIpqwJWMKLAO9hdsPfmb Z4O32l/YmAHUdeybzMBIDzM/bY+CcsfconKbfELLZmEA3XlTnesfS/jJLD4GlOaE GCXAQ/cbuVQmxw7SuGfU+5krzx6BiXesniohbrWl8sol0nTLz9xphylC9TixmYT4 qDTc0FX3txLIpma99NZTnD+S+ozOaCYM0Ejm87I8QrtFBXvvYF47mzcUoCRL4aYH WY9emY8Gw26T5aE9pneheZokjefAiAuo5r++vgug8SxWZcGU2HG4iqY0J6lPcP9H 8D+QqFQ3glD0a3YJNTQ2QVW1K/DBIVw/YJ4awfBZudg7oLxBuGgrI3BF5l486p9x u2RXB3WyuHMfsRYMqstglayRFNaA55mF9QKdVvqPo4Y6vLVklkAgamC/AEPEYKUN UPg/HKs8U/7h3W1S4YClp1TV4OpOuYT0veT6NOivXGc0AclLFjY1HxsMylFNKnQD zoZJEMpNE+ul/NiKDd3nsqO0GAncYy0RjEQoVaITMQDggwiyAsiIz45XZpHYSnKb uet3wMAxctJPTpXeqeV2ATZFhHHC/olk3yNpWkl09o+3aofQ3K1vEnkUX8UqCXZy 3w0+xBViEfd0F/4vFc7IanO77UugcRTrSGjejCsYKtU5QhhXA7s9artUuQVfl4vr Vax9d4IR94MDDNO/VubA =xkNx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5TZBROn01cl7bgIF--