Any chance this could be a view?
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Jonah H. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Jean-David Beyer > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/ > > -- > Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql >
