On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:45:29AM -0400, Will French wrote:
>
> I looked but could not find any reference in the docs regarding
> limits on the number of columns a table may have. I can say for
> certain that at 50 you are at no risk (I have tables with 140+).
> The only db that I know the limit
Just a point. The limit might be high, but accessing a table as such will
not be as quick... if possible, should normalise your data. the whole idea
behind RDMS.
If this has been done, ignore me :)
Luke
-
Before posting, pleas
I looked but could not find any reference in the docs regarding limits on
the number of columns a table may have. I can say for certain that at 50
you are at no risk (I have tables with 140+). The only db that I know the
limit on is MS Sql Server and it allows 255.
> -Original Message-
