Best way to store data : Many columns vs many rows for a case of 10,000 new rows a day - postgresql

Question

after checking a lot of similar questions on stackoverflow, it seems that context will tell which way is the best to hold the data...
Short story, I add over 10,000 new rows of data in a very simple table containing only 3 columns. I will NEVER update the rows, only doing selects, grouping and making averages. I'm looking for the best way of storing this data to make the average calculations as fast as possible.
To put you in context, I'm analyzing a recorded audio file (Pink Noise playback in a sound mixing studio) using FFTs. The results for a single audio file is always in the same format: The frequency bin's ID (integer) and its value in decibels (float value). I'm want to store these values in a PostgreSQL DB.
Each bin (band) of frequencies (width = 8Hz) gets an amplitude in decibels. The first bin is ignored, so it goes like this (not actual dB values):
bin 1: 8Hz-16Hz, -85.0dB
bin 2: 16Hz-32Hz, -73.0dB
bin 3: 32Hz-40Hz, -65.0dB
...
bin 2499: 20,000Hz-20,008Hz, -49.0dB
The goal is to store an amplitude of each bin from 8Hz through 20,008Hz (1 bin covers 8Hz).
Many rows approach
For each analyzed audio file, there would be 2,499 rows of 3 columns: "Analysis UID", "Bin ID" and "dB".
For each studio (4), there is one recording daily that is to be appended in the database (that's 4 times 2,499 = 9,996 new rows per day).
After a recording in one studio, the new 2,499 rows are used to show a plot of the frequency response.
My concern is that we also need to make a plot of the averaged dB values of every bin in a single studio for 5-30 days, to see if the frequency response tends to change significantly over time (thus telling us that a calibration is needed in a studio).
I came up with the following data structure for the many rows approach:
"analysis" table:
analysisUID (serial)
studioUID (Foreign key)
analysisTimestamp
"analysis_results" table:
analysisUID (Foreign key)
freq_bin_id (integer)
amplitude_dB (float)
Is this the optimal way of storing data? A single table holding close to 10,000 new rows a day and making averages of 5 or more analysis, grouping by analysisUIDs and freq_bin_ids? That would give me 2,499 rows (each corresponding to a bin and giving me the averaged dB value).
Many columns approach:
I thought I could do it the other way around, breaking the frequency bins in 4 tables (Low, Med Low, Med High, High). Since Postgres documentation says the column limit is "250 - 1600 depending on column types", it would be realistic to make 4 tables containing around 625 columns (2,499 / 4) each representing a bin and containing the "dB" value, like so:
"low" table:
analysisUID (Foreign key)
freq_bin_id_1_amplitude_dB (float)
freq_bin_id_2_amplitude_dB (float)
...
freq_bin_id_625_amplitude_dB (float)
"med_low" table:
analysisUID (Foreign key)
freq_bin_id_626_amplitude_dB (float)
freq_bin_id_627_amplitude_dB (float)
...
freq_bin_id_1250_amplitude_dB (float)
etc...
Would the averages be computed faster if the server only has to Group by analysisUIDs and make averages of each column?

Answer 1

Rows are not going to be an issue, however, the way in which you insert said rows could be. If insert time is one of the primary concerns, then make sure you can bulk insert them OR go for a format with fewer rows.
You can potentially store all the data in a jsonb format, especially since you will not be doing any updates to the data-- it may be convenient to store it all in one table at a time, however the performance may be less.
In any case, since you're not updating the data, the (usually default) fillfactor of 100 is appropriate.
I would NOT use the "many column" approach, as the
amount of data you're talking about really isn't that much. Using your first example of 2 tables and few columns is very likely the optimal way to do your results.
It may be useful to index the following columns:
analysis_results.freq_bin_id
analysis.analysisTimestamp
As to breaking the data into different sections, it'll depend on what types of queries you're running. If you're looking at ALL freq bins, using multiple tables will just be a hassle and net you nothing.
If only querying at some freq_bin's at a time, it could theoretically help, however, you're basically doing table partitions and once you've moved into that land, you might as well make a partition for each frequency band.
If I were you, I'd create your first table structure, fill it with 30 days worth of data and query away. You may (as we often do) be overanalyzing the situation. Postgres can be very, very fast.
Remember, the raw data you're analyzing is something on the order of a few (5 or less) meg per day at an absolute maximum. Analyzing 150 mb of data is no sweat for a DB running with modern hardware if it's indexed and stored properly.
The optimizer is going to find the correct rows in the "smaller" table really, really fast and likely cache all of those, then go looking for the child rows, and it'll know exactly what ID's and ranges to search for. If your data is all inserted in chronological order, there's a good chance it'll read it all in very few reads with very few seeks.
My main concern is with the insert speed, as a doing 10,000 inserts can take a while if you're not doing bulk inserts.

Answer 2

Since the measurements seem well behaved, you could use an array, using the freq_bin as an index (Note: indices are 1-based in sql)
This has the additional advantage of the aray being stored in toasted storage, keeping the fysical table small.
CREATE TABLE herrie
( analysisUID serial NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY
, studioUID INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES studio(studioUID)
, analysisTimestamp TIMESTAMP NOT NULL
, decibels float[] -- array with 625 measurements
, UNIQUE (studioUID,analysisTimestamp)
);