Greetings,
* Lev Kokotov (lev.kokotov@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 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
