On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > Related question, maybe someone knows the answer to this. If
> > I am storing "words" in a tuple, I would be better trying to
> > get almost 8k worth of words in a tuple, instead of having
> > 800 tuples with words of 10 bytes each in it?
>
> Store it in the most convenient way for you and let the database
> decide on how to most efficiently store your data. Isn't that
> what databases are for?
That's what I thought originally, but it isn't working that way
it seems. Certainly with large objects, you have to treat the
data differently than just stuff it in and work with it. But,
this application could easily have tuples larger than 8k, and
apparently this isn't allowed unless I recompile PostgreSQL.
Instead of having a dbase different than most, I'm changing how
I store the data to reflect average conditions. Maybe I
am just reading the manuals wrong.
Gord
Matter Realisations http://www.materialisations.com/
Gordon Haverland, B.Sc. M.Eng. President
101 9504 182 St. NW Edmonton, AB, CA T5T 3A7
780/481-8019 ghaverla @ freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
