Re: Curious about wide tables.

["Mag Gam" <magawake(at)gmail(dot)com>]

Any chance this could be a view?


On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Jonah H. Harris <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Jean-David Beyer
> <jeandavid8(at)verizon(dot)net> 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 Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
> 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah(dot)harris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
> Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql
>