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