On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Jean-David Beyer
<jeandavid8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In another thread, the O.P. had a question about a large table with over
100
> columns. Is this usual? Whenever I make a database, which is not often,
it
> ends up with tables that rarely have over to columns, and usually less
than
> that. When normalized, my tables rarely get very wide.
Yes, even in several well-normalized schemas I've seen tables with
over 250 columns.
> Without criticising the O.P., since I know nothing about his
application, I
> am curious how it comes about that such a wide table is justified.
The few applications I've seen with large tables were an insurance
system, an manufacturing system, and a sensor-recording system (which
was more optimal to store as an attribute-per-instance-of-time than a
separate tuple containing the time, sensor, and value).
--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Cor****ation | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql
|
