Hi, 2017-12-10 2:53 GMT+01:00 John R Pierce <pie...@hogranch.com>: > I believe I would use boolean, not bit.
Agreed. 2017-12-10 10:01 GMT+01:00 Thomas Kellerer <spam_ea...@gmx.net>: > Did you try to use a (single) hstore or jsonb column instead where the > attribute name is the key? Thought about that and I'm using hstore extensively with OpenStreetMap data in my PostGIS Terminal. But it "hurts" really with key-values of type text (with numeric optimization)... 1. to see boolean values stored in text values 2. to see tables m1 and m2 which have a relatively unchanging schema (since sensors are HW) 3. and knowing that and m1 and m2 have a large common set of sensors (i.e. common set of attributes). :Stefan 2017-12-10 10:01 GMT+01:00 Thomas Kellerer <spam_ea...@gmx.net>: >> I actually made some tests on my own (using generate_series) and did >> not find any disk space or performance issues yet. >> I've also found this paper from 2012 about "Sensor Data Storage >> Performance: SQL or NoSQL, Physical or Virtual" [2] which confirms my >> observations. >> >> Now, you have to know that there are about 100 attributes for the >> machines/tables - not only 40 - so I initially thought, it's easier to >> setup the schema using bit(50) and float8[50]. > > > Did you try to use a (single) hstore or jsonb column instead where the > attribute name is the key? > > You'd lose some type safety, but those data types can be compressed, so that > might be worth the trade off > > Thomas > > >
