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.
Greg
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.
Dror
-- Greg Spiegelberg Sr. Product Development Engineer Cranel, Incorporated. Phone: 614.318.4314 Fax: 614.431.8388 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cranel. Technology. Integrity. Focus.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
