Joe Conway schreef op vr 09-06-2023 om 09:16 [-0400]:
> On 6/8/23 22:17, Pat Trainor wrote:
> > I need to have a very large matrix to maintain & query, and if not
> > (1,600 column limit), then how could such data be broken down to
> > work?
>
> 100,000 rows *
> 100,000 columns *
> 8 bytes (assuming float8)
> = about 80 GB per matrix if I got the math correct.
>
>
based on my personal experience i would not use postgres in the case
where you need many columns, u can work around this with json for
example, but it will likely end up being less easy to work with
as Joe replied: R or Python are probably a better fit,
or another database that can easily handle a lot of columns,
postgres is a great database, but not when you need a lot of columns
(as you noted+:
there might be another backend storage for postgres that can handle
this better (or in the future?), but i don't think there is one;
also there is the header for which standard 8K is provisioned anyway,
so that is the first bottleneck (you can change this value, if you
compile postgres yourself)
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/limits.html )
Wim
