On 11/12/2010 08:38 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Yes I understand that this is "bad design" but what we are doing is storing > each form field in a survey in its own column. For very long surveys we end > up with thousands of elements. > I know storing in an array is possible but it makes it so much easier to > query the data set when each element is in its own field. I had lots of > comments on why I should not do this and the possible alternatives and I > thank everyone for their input but no one answered the question about > compiling with a higher block size to get more columns. Can anyone answer > that? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 12:24 AM > To: Mark Mitchell > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] More then 1600 columns? > > "Mark Mitchell" <mmitch...@riccagroup.com> writes: >> Is there are hard limit of 1600 that you cannot get around? > > Yes. > > Generally, wanting more than a few dozen columns is a good sign that you > need to rethink your schema design. What are you trying to accomplish > exactly? > > regards, tom lane > > You can answer this yourself. Save chunks of the survey each in their own table all keyed with a single id. I'm betting you don't write all 1600 fields at once (or your willing to seriously piss-off the data entry staff when stuff happens trying to save the last "page"). select * from table1, table 2 ... where table1.id = table2.id and table2.id = table3.id .... Then you don't have to ensure that you custom postgres is "everywhere you want to be".
-- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
