Apologizes Tom I did not see that you had answered yes to my question about the hard limit. You have all been very helpful, I will give up on the 1600+ columns and look into using hstore.
Cheers - Mark -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 11:09 AM To: Mark Mitchell Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] More then 1600 columns? "Mark Mitchell" <mmitch...@riccagroup.com> writes: > 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? Yes, I did answer it: there is no such compilation option. If you were willing to run a very nonstandard version of Postgres, you could try widening t_hoff (see src/include/access/htup.h) but there is nobody who can tell you what the fallout from that might be. One big concern that I would have is the likelihood of O(N^2) behavior on very long query targetlists. On the whole I think you'd be a lot better off looking into hstore, especially the improved 9.0 version. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
