Shane Ambler wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer 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 n
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
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 usua
Jean-David Beyer 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 v
