Thanks, this is what I'm currently using and want to change from. This
table is taking a long time to insert data into and to extract. My
smallest table of this sort has 68000 rows. In comparison arrays are 10
times faster but lack the required tools to work with (especially for
multidimensional arrays, even after I have extended the operators in the
contrib section). Also I cannot put field names for individual columns of
an array.
\Indraneel
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Mark Volpe wrote:
> You may want to think about creating your table like this (for example):
>
> CREATE TABLE data
> (
> key text,
> field_type char,
> value text
> );
>
> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX data_key ON data(key, field_type, value);
>
> So this way each "record" takes up several rows in the table, and each "field"
> can take up as many rows as you need. A table like this, with two columns
> being arrays:
>
> key | field1 | field2
> -------------------------
> a | [x,y,z] | [a,d,f]
> b | [m,n] | (NULL)
>
> Can be represented like this instead:
>
> key | field_type | value
> -------------------------
> a | 1 | x
> a | 1 | y
> a | 1 | z
> a | 2 | a
> a | 2 | d
> a | 2 | f
> b | 1 | m
> b | 1 | n
>
>
> I'm not sure what your data looks like, but I hope this helps.
>
> Mark
>
/************************************************************************.
# Indraneel Majumdar ¡ E-mail: indraneel@123india.com #
# Bioinformatics Unit (EMBNET node), ¡ URL: http://scorpius.iwarp.com #
# Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, #
# Hyderabad, India - 500076 #
`************************************************************************/