Jay Sprenkle wrote:
On 2/10/06, Fred Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, unfortunately our bid'ness seems to be a "contact sport" for many.
I have been guilty of pretty much the same more times than I am proud
of. That said...
The question is quite valid. I do agree that something must be amiss if
there is a requirement for a large number of columns in a table.
I always think back to a collage beginning COBOL class. The assignment
was to print a simple two dimensional table at the top of each page of a
report. The ones who did it right had no more than about 50 "source"
punch cards in their deck. One student (A IBM 370 night operator,
trying to better his lot.) carried in five full boxes of punched cards!
I think he was happy to get back to his shift :-)
Sometimes people are not even able to ask the right question, based on
their "unsophistication." But those that are smart enough, do at least
ask a question, and then Listen. We who consider ourselves
"sophisticated" must endeavor to be forever humble, in order to appear
"Inteligent" rather than "Smart A--".
LOL! Touche!
I guess you could have a table with a realy large number of
columns...For one of my projects i had to store data from a high voltage
device which had 100 or so(i don't remember very well) parameters that
would constantly be updated. Part of this application would read those
values and then take actions based on them. the only rational thing to
do was to place them all in a single table (they were not liked
together, just values that a device reported )
That being said, 1000 columns...really? CIA and FBI (and other secret
services for that matter) would be impressed by the amount of data you
possess ( shurely that's not the only table in your database, is it?
you're trying to take over the world, admit it pinky!...or was it
brain...? admit it brain!)
