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