I'd bet there is someone out there using more than 2000 columns. Either they probably won't admit it or will be the first to brag about it :-)
I'd say if it relates to performance/footprint the smaller the column count the better as an upper limit. In over thirty years of consulting I've seen very few tables that even exceeded about 256. I don't think I've ever seen a table over a thousand columns wide. Most of those large "tables" were old ISAM files on Old Blue boxes created long before the days of good database design. The parallel table should either solve the problem, force them to redesign, or switch to a "fatter" database engine. BTW, Most of the "enterprise" database engines I have worked with have had either published or "stealth" column count limits. All those that I remember were below 2000. But I must admit I have not worked with any of the current releases of the "big boys." Fred -----Original Message----- From: Bert Verhees [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 6:38 AM To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org Subject: Re: [sqlite] Proposal: limit the number of columns in a table to 2000. I cannot imagine ever needing more then 2000 columns in a table, if I would, I could always create a parallel table > > >>As currently implemented, there is no fixed limit to >>the number >>of columns you can put in a table in SQLite. If the >...
