| From: | "Clark C(dot) Evans" <cce(at)clarkevans(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, "Mark Mitchell" <mmitchell(at)riccagroup(dot)com>, "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: More then 1600 columns? |
| Date: | 2010-11-12 21:25:38 |
| Message-ID: | 1289597138.17195.1405027223@webmail.messagingengine.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 21:10 +0000, "Dann Corbit" wrote:
> If (for access) the single table seems simpler, then
> a view can be used.
Even if you "partition" the columns in the instrument
over N tables, you still can't query it in a single
result set. The limit is quite deep in PostgreSQL
and extends to tuples, including views and in-memory
query results.
I find that partitioning does work, but it requires extra
care on the part of the application developer that really
shouldn't be necessary.
Best,
Clark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitriy Igrishin | 2010-11-12 21:29:48 | Re: More then 1600 columns? |
| Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2010-11-12 21:10:41 | Re: More then 1600 columns? |