I gave this some serious thought at first.  I only deal with
int8, numeric(24,12) and varchar(32) columns which I could
reduce to 3 different tables.  Problem was going from 1700-3000
rows to around 300,000-1,000,000 rows per system per day that
is sending data to our database.

BTW, the int8 and numeric(24,12) are for future expansion.
I hate limits.


Dror Matalon wrote:
It's still not quite clear what you're trying to do. Many people's gut
reaction is that you're doing something strange with so many columns in
a table.

Using your example, a different approach might be to do this instead:

Day | Name | Value
Oct 1 | OS | Solaris 5.8 Oct 1 | Patch | 108528-12
Oct 3 | Patch | 108528-13

You end up with lots more rows, fewer columns, but it might be harder to query the table. On the other hand, queries should run quite fast, since it's a much more "normal" table.

But without knowing more, and seeing what the other columns look like,
it's hard to tell.


Greg Spiegelberg
 Sr. Product Development Engineer
 Cranel, Incorporated.
 Phone: 614.318.4314
 Fax:   614.431.8388
Cranel. Technology. Integrity. Focus.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to