Why not just use 43 db rows each with 80 fields and a matrix row
index field? Then 350 records with 80x43=3440 fields turns into
350x43=15050 records with 81 fields, which is much more manageable.
PS - Does this table happen to be for recording the contents of a text
window? (43 columns and 80 rows).
Ernie Hershey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Sparta Cruz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 3:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Maximum # of Columns
am trying to design a good database, that has a matrix of data per
record. For example, 1 record already has 80x43 = 3440 datafields which
each need to hold real numbers. The way I would do it would be to hold
a row of 3440 columns, but I do not know if that will be a mistake or if
that would be the best way of doing it. I could store each matrix in a
file, but how efficient would that be. Also, I have never created 3440
columns on a database, but it does sound awkward especially given the
fact that there will only be 350 records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
