Should I split timestamp parts into separate columns?Should we add extra 5 columns or build a separate table?Should I separate frequently updated columns?Is it worth to separate columns into multiple tables for one-to-one relational tableAre triggers bad for created/timestamp columns?Split two rows into two columnsShould I split this large table into three smaller tables?Should I move repeating foreign keys into separate table?Extracting 'hot columns' into a separate tableTransfer microsecond timestamp into table using COPYDatabase performance improvements for current setup. (mysql - marriaDB)

How did NASA Langley end up with the first 737?

Is "vegetable base" a common term in English?

Why A=2 and B=1 in the call signs for Spirit and Opportunity?

What did the 'turbo' button actually do?

Why was this character made Grand Maester?

Why do Russians almost not use verbs of possession akin to "have"?

Why would a rational buyer offer to buy with no conditions precedent?

Why does Bran want to find Drogon?

Who knighted this character?

On San Andreas Speedruns, why do players blow up the Picador in the mission Ryder?

Do copyright notices need to be placed at the beginning of a file?

Did this character show any indication of wanting to rule before S8E6?

shell script is not executed after adding it as a crontab job

How to deceive the MC

Heat lost in ideal capacitor charging

Is there a simple example that empirical evidence is misleading?

Why isn't 'chemically-strengthened glass' made with potassium carbonate? To begin with?

Python program for fibonacci sequence using a recursive function

Why is this integration method not valid?

Is keeping the forking link on a true fork necessary (Github/GPL)?

How to let other coworkers know that I don't share my coworker's political views?

No Iron for your fair-folk maiden? (Part 1)

Fixie: how to learn to ride: step by step

Interpreation ROC AUC score



Should I split timestamp parts into separate columns?


Should we add extra 5 columns or build a separate table?Should I separate frequently updated columns?Is it worth to separate columns into multiple tables for one-to-one relational tableAre triggers bad for created/timestamp columns?Split two rows into two columnsShould I split this large table into three smaller tables?Should I move repeating foreign keys into separate table?Extracting 'hot columns' into a separate tableTransfer microsecond timestamp into table using COPYDatabase performance improvements for current setup. (mysql - marriaDB)






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








2















I am building a PostgreSQL database and I have created a timestamp table, where the primary key is the timestamp itself (e.g. id: Fri Apr 13 2018 15:00:19). The database is supposed to be later migrated to a data warehouse, from which analytics will be extracted.



At this point, I am wondering whether it is beneficial to add extra columns to the timestamp table, containing the parsed metrics such as the example below, or have a single table with the ID's.



id | year | month | day | hour | minutes | seconds
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri Apr 13 2018 15:00:19 | 2018 | 4 | 13 | 15 | 0 | 19


vs


id
-------------------------
Fri Apr 13 2018 15:00:19


My goal is to achieve the best performance possible when querying the data warehouse, so I'm assuming having the timestamp split accordingly will result in faster queries rather than unzipping time metrics in real-time:



SELECT * FROM timestamp_table WHERE year = 2018 /* Querying values already parsed */

vs

SELECT * FROM timestamp_table WHERE YEAR(timestamp_id) = 2018 /* Parsing in real-time*/


I would appreciate some best practices input on this.










share|improve this question









New contributor



Khabz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.



















  • Add fields you need and update them in triggers.

    – Akina
    13 hours ago











  • Is the timestamp updated when the record is updated? If not, the warehouse will need to use other methods to identify changed records, like checksums, and the timestamp may not be useful at all.

    – Jon of All Trades
    7 hours ago

















2















I am building a PostgreSQL database and I have created a timestamp table, where the primary key is the timestamp itself (e.g. id: Fri Apr 13 2018 15:00:19). The database is supposed to be later migrated to a data warehouse, from which analytics will be extracted.



At this point, I am wondering whether it is beneficial to add extra columns to the timestamp table, containing the parsed metrics such as the example below, or have a single table with the ID's.



id | year | month | day | hour | minutes | seconds
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri Apr 13 2018 15:00:19 | 2018 | 4 | 13 | 15 | 0 | 19


vs


id
-------------------------
Fri Apr 13 2018 15:00:19


My goal is to achieve the best performance possible when querying the data warehouse, so I'm assuming having the timestamp split accordingly will result in faster queries rather than unzipping time metrics in real-time:



SELECT * FROM timestamp_table WHERE year = 2018 /* Querying values already parsed */

vs

SELECT * FROM timestamp_table WHERE YEAR(timestamp_id) = 2018 /* Parsing in real-time*/


I would appreciate some best practices input on this.










share|improve this question









New contributor



Khabz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.



















  • Add fields you need and update them in triggers.

    – Akina
    13 hours ago











  • Is the timestamp updated when the record is updated? If not, the warehouse will need to use other methods to identify changed records, like checksums, and the timestamp may not be useful at all.

    – Jon of All Trades
    7 hours ago













2












2








2








I am building a PostgreSQL database and I have created a timestamp table, where the primary key is the timestamp itself (e.g. id: Fri Apr 13 2018 15:00:19). The database is supposed to be later migrated to a data warehouse, from which analytics will be extracted.



At this point, I am wondering whether it is beneficial to add extra columns to the timestamp table, containing the parsed metrics such as the example below, or have a single table with the ID's.



id | year | month | day | hour | minutes | seconds
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri Apr 13 2018 15:00:19 | 2018 | 4 | 13 | 15 | 0 | 19


vs


id
-------------------------
Fri Apr 13 2018 15:00:19


My goal is to achieve the best performance possible when querying the data warehouse, so I'm assuming having the timestamp split accordingly will result in faster queries rather than unzipping time metrics in real-time:



SELECT * FROM timestamp_table WHERE year = 2018 /* Querying values already parsed */

vs

SELECT * FROM timestamp_table WHERE YEAR(timestamp_id) = 2018 /* Parsing in real-time*/


I would appreciate some best practices input on this.










share|improve this question









New contributor



Khabz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I am building a PostgreSQL database and I have created a timestamp table, where the primary key is the timestamp itself (e.g. id: Fri Apr 13 2018 15:00:19). The database is supposed to be later migrated to a data warehouse, from which analytics will be extracted.



At this point, I am wondering whether it is beneficial to add extra columns to the timestamp table, containing the parsed metrics such as the example below, or have a single table with the ID's.



id | year | month | day | hour | minutes | seconds
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri Apr 13 2018 15:00:19 | 2018 | 4 | 13 | 15 | 0 | 19


vs


id
-------------------------
Fri Apr 13 2018 15:00:19


My goal is to achieve the best performance possible when querying the data warehouse, so I'm assuming having the timestamp split accordingly will result in faster queries rather than unzipping time metrics in real-time:



SELECT * FROM timestamp_table WHERE year = 2018 /* Querying values already parsed */

vs

SELECT * FROM timestamp_table WHERE YEAR(timestamp_id) = 2018 /* Parsing in real-time*/


I would appreciate some best practices input on this.







postgresql database-design query-performance optimization timestamp






share|improve this question









New contributor



Khabz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










share|improve this question









New contributor



Khabz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago









MDCCL

6,90331846




6,90331846






New contributor



Khabz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








asked 13 hours ago









KhabzKhabz

1113




1113




New contributor



Khabz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




Khabz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • Add fields you need and update them in triggers.

    – Akina
    13 hours ago











  • Is the timestamp updated when the record is updated? If not, the warehouse will need to use other methods to identify changed records, like checksums, and the timestamp may not be useful at all.

    – Jon of All Trades
    7 hours ago

















  • Add fields you need and update them in triggers.

    – Akina
    13 hours ago











  • Is the timestamp updated when the record is updated? If not, the warehouse will need to use other methods to identify changed records, like checksums, and the timestamp may not be useful at all.

    – Jon of All Trades
    7 hours ago
















Add fields you need and update them in triggers.

– Akina
13 hours ago





Add fields you need and update them in triggers.

– Akina
13 hours ago













Is the timestamp updated when the record is updated? If not, the warehouse will need to use other methods to identify changed records, like checksums, and the timestamp may not be useful at all.

– Jon of All Trades
7 hours ago





Is the timestamp updated when the record is updated? If not, the warehouse will need to use other methods to identify changed records, like checksums, and the timestamp may not be useful at all.

– Jon of All Trades
7 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6














Keep the timestamp and don't add columns for the parts.



If you need to search for part of a timestamp, you can always create indexes on extract expressions.



Having individual columns wastes space and adds undesirable redundancy for no benefit I can envision.






share|improve this answer























  • In that case should I have a separate table or have the timestamp object inside each table?

    – Khabz
    10 hours ago












  • Also, is it not ok to have some redundancy if that's gonna (positively) impact performance when querying the data?

    – Khabz
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    Normally you shouldn't store the same information redundantly. If you get a notable performance benefit, exceptions are ok. If that is the case for storing the same timestamps in several tables depends on your data model and your queries. But I am quite sure that you won't get a performance benefit from storing the several parts of a timestamp separately.

    – Laurenz Albe
    9 hours ago


















4














You seem to be engaging in premature optimization -- you should not assume performance characteristics of any particular design, but test them.



When you store components of a timestamp value in separate columns you may not gain noticeable performance benefits, but you will increase the risk of inconsistent data or the maintenance overhead (or both).



Having said that, there may be valid reasons to store some components of the timestamp as separate columns, for example:



  • Components, such as year, quarter, month constitute valid dimensions in your data warehouse model.

  • Your database physical design calls for data partitioning by time intervals to facilitate maintenance or improve performance of some operations.





share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "182"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );






    Khabz is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f238669%2fshould-i-split-timestamp-parts-into-separate-columns%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    6














    Keep the timestamp and don't add columns for the parts.



    If you need to search for part of a timestamp, you can always create indexes on extract expressions.



    Having individual columns wastes space and adds undesirable redundancy for no benefit I can envision.






    share|improve this answer























    • In that case should I have a separate table or have the timestamp object inside each table?

      – Khabz
      10 hours ago












    • Also, is it not ok to have some redundancy if that's gonna (positively) impact performance when querying the data?

      – Khabz
      10 hours ago






    • 2





      Normally you shouldn't store the same information redundantly. If you get a notable performance benefit, exceptions are ok. If that is the case for storing the same timestamps in several tables depends on your data model and your queries. But I am quite sure that you won't get a performance benefit from storing the several parts of a timestamp separately.

      – Laurenz Albe
      9 hours ago















    6














    Keep the timestamp and don't add columns for the parts.



    If you need to search for part of a timestamp, you can always create indexes on extract expressions.



    Having individual columns wastes space and adds undesirable redundancy for no benefit I can envision.






    share|improve this answer























    • In that case should I have a separate table or have the timestamp object inside each table?

      – Khabz
      10 hours ago












    • Also, is it not ok to have some redundancy if that's gonna (positively) impact performance when querying the data?

      – Khabz
      10 hours ago






    • 2





      Normally you shouldn't store the same information redundantly. If you get a notable performance benefit, exceptions are ok. If that is the case for storing the same timestamps in several tables depends on your data model and your queries. But I am quite sure that you won't get a performance benefit from storing the several parts of a timestamp separately.

      – Laurenz Albe
      9 hours ago













    6












    6








    6







    Keep the timestamp and don't add columns for the parts.



    If you need to search for part of a timestamp, you can always create indexes on extract expressions.



    Having individual columns wastes space and adds undesirable redundancy for no benefit I can envision.






    share|improve this answer













    Keep the timestamp and don't add columns for the parts.



    If you need to search for part of a timestamp, you can always create indexes on extract expressions.



    Having individual columns wastes space and adds undesirable redundancy for no benefit I can envision.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 12 hours ago









    Laurenz AlbeLaurenz Albe

    42711




    42711












    • In that case should I have a separate table or have the timestamp object inside each table?

      – Khabz
      10 hours ago












    • Also, is it not ok to have some redundancy if that's gonna (positively) impact performance when querying the data?

      – Khabz
      10 hours ago






    • 2





      Normally you shouldn't store the same information redundantly. If you get a notable performance benefit, exceptions are ok. If that is the case for storing the same timestamps in several tables depends on your data model and your queries. But I am quite sure that you won't get a performance benefit from storing the several parts of a timestamp separately.

      – Laurenz Albe
      9 hours ago

















    • In that case should I have a separate table or have the timestamp object inside each table?

      – Khabz
      10 hours ago












    • Also, is it not ok to have some redundancy if that's gonna (positively) impact performance when querying the data?

      – Khabz
      10 hours ago






    • 2





      Normally you shouldn't store the same information redundantly. If you get a notable performance benefit, exceptions are ok. If that is the case for storing the same timestamps in several tables depends on your data model and your queries. But I am quite sure that you won't get a performance benefit from storing the several parts of a timestamp separately.

      – Laurenz Albe
      9 hours ago
















    In that case should I have a separate table or have the timestamp object inside each table?

    – Khabz
    10 hours ago






    In that case should I have a separate table or have the timestamp object inside each table?

    – Khabz
    10 hours ago














    Also, is it not ok to have some redundancy if that's gonna (positively) impact performance when querying the data?

    – Khabz
    10 hours ago





    Also, is it not ok to have some redundancy if that's gonna (positively) impact performance when querying the data?

    – Khabz
    10 hours ago




    2




    2





    Normally you shouldn't store the same information redundantly. If you get a notable performance benefit, exceptions are ok. If that is the case for storing the same timestamps in several tables depends on your data model and your queries. But I am quite sure that you won't get a performance benefit from storing the several parts of a timestamp separately.

    – Laurenz Albe
    9 hours ago





    Normally you shouldn't store the same information redundantly. If you get a notable performance benefit, exceptions are ok. If that is the case for storing the same timestamps in several tables depends on your data model and your queries. But I am quite sure that you won't get a performance benefit from storing the several parts of a timestamp separately.

    – Laurenz Albe
    9 hours ago













    4














    You seem to be engaging in premature optimization -- you should not assume performance characteristics of any particular design, but test them.



    When you store components of a timestamp value in separate columns you may not gain noticeable performance benefits, but you will increase the risk of inconsistent data or the maintenance overhead (or both).



    Having said that, there may be valid reasons to store some components of the timestamp as separate columns, for example:



    • Components, such as year, quarter, month constitute valid dimensions in your data warehouse model.

    • Your database physical design calls for data partitioning by time intervals to facilitate maintenance or improve performance of some operations.





    share|improve this answer



























      4














      You seem to be engaging in premature optimization -- you should not assume performance characteristics of any particular design, but test them.



      When you store components of a timestamp value in separate columns you may not gain noticeable performance benefits, but you will increase the risk of inconsistent data or the maintenance overhead (or both).



      Having said that, there may be valid reasons to store some components of the timestamp as separate columns, for example:



      • Components, such as year, quarter, month constitute valid dimensions in your data warehouse model.

      • Your database physical design calls for data partitioning by time intervals to facilitate maintenance or improve performance of some operations.





      share|improve this answer

























        4












        4








        4







        You seem to be engaging in premature optimization -- you should not assume performance characteristics of any particular design, but test them.



        When you store components of a timestamp value in separate columns you may not gain noticeable performance benefits, but you will increase the risk of inconsistent data or the maintenance overhead (or both).



        Having said that, there may be valid reasons to store some components of the timestamp as separate columns, for example:



        • Components, such as year, quarter, month constitute valid dimensions in your data warehouse model.

        • Your database physical design calls for data partitioning by time intervals to facilitate maintenance or improve performance of some operations.





        share|improve this answer













        You seem to be engaging in premature optimization -- you should not assume performance characteristics of any particular design, but test them.



        When you store components of a timestamp value in separate columns you may not gain noticeable performance benefits, but you will increase the risk of inconsistent data or the maintenance overhead (or both).



        Having said that, there may be valid reasons to store some components of the timestamp as separate columns, for example:



        • Components, such as year, quarter, month constitute valid dimensions in your data warehouse model.

        • Your database physical design calls for data partitioning by time intervals to facilitate maintenance or improve performance of some operations.






        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 7 hours ago









        mustacciomustaccio

        10.6k72343




        10.6k72343




















            Khabz is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Khabz is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Khabz is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            Khabz is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














            Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f238669%2fshould-i-split-timestamp-parts-into-separate-columns%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Siegen Nawigatsjuun

            Log på Navigationsmenu

            Log på Navigationsmenu