Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Altering array(composite-types) without breaking code when inserting them and similar questions - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Dorian Hoxha
Subject Re: Altering array(composite-types) without breaking code when inserting them and similar questions
Date
Msg-id CANsFX07BghL_SHaxDUQUAt0U3BTrg0fN53LZCCd+9bASetfYYw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Altering array(composite-types) without breaking code when inserting them and similar questions  (Dorian Hoxha <dorian.hoxha@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Altering array(composite-types) without breaking code when inserting them and similar questions  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
Tree view
Since my alternative is using json, that is heavier (need to store keys in every row) than composite-types.
Updating an element on a specific composite_type inside an array of them is done by UPDATE table SET composite[2].x = 24;

So last standing question, is it possible to insert an array of composite_types by not specifying all of the columns for each composite_type ?
So if i later add other columns to the composite_type, the insert query doesn't break ?

Thanks


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Dorian Hoxha <dorian.hoxha@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe the char array link is wrong ? I don't think an array of arrays is good for my case. I'll probably go for json or separate table since it looks it's not possible to use composite-types.


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Rob Sargentg <robjsargent@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, I should not have top-posted (Dang iPhone).  Continued below:

On 04/20/2014 05:54 PM, Dorian Hoxha wrote:
Because i always query the whole row, and in the other way(many tables) i will always join + have other indexes.


On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com> wrote:
Why do you think you need an array of theType v. a dependent table of theType. This tack is of course immune to to most future type changess. 

Sent from my iPhone

Interesting.  Of course any decent mapper will return "the whole row". And would it be less disk intensive as an array of "struct ( where struct is implemented as an array)".  From other threads [1] [2] I've come to understand the datatype overhead per native type will be applied per type instance per array element.

[1] 30K floats
[2] char array


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgresql the right tool (queue using advisory_locks + long transactions)
Next
From: rob stone
Date:
Subject: Re: Return and sql tuple descriptions are incompatible