From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jean-David Beyer" <jeandavid8(at)verizon(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Curious about wide tables. |
Date: | 2008-04-27 16:06:41 |
Message-ID: | 36e682920804270906i7b5c5ab9v4e06688df85f810@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Jean-David Beyer
<jeandavid8(at)verizon(dot)net> 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 | jonah(dot)harris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mag Gam | 2008-04-27 16:14:49 | Re: Curious about wide tables. |
Previous Message | Joe | 2008-04-27 15:55:18 | Re: Protection from SQL injection |