Re: How many fields in a table are too many

From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
To: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: How many fields in a table are too many
Date: 2003-06-26 07:49:09
Message-ID: 3EFAF2CD.16911.34969AC@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 26 Jun 2003 at 3:44, btober(at)seaworthysys(dot)com wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:17:12AM -0400, btober(at)seaworthysys(dot)com
> > wrote:
> >> > I have a table with 13 fields. Is that
> >> > too many fields for one table.
> >> > Mark
> >> Thirteen? No way. I've got you beat with 21:
> > Pfft! Is *that* all? I've got a table with 116 fields.
> I *knew* a number of these responses would be forthcoming... :)

I remember somebody posting a database schema with 500 fields.

Don't worry as long as it works. When you have problems, post it on
performance. First advice you would get is to normalize it..:-)

Bye
Shridhar

--
We have phasers, I vote we blast 'em! -- Bailey, "The Corbomite Maneuver",
stardate 1514.2

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2003-06-26 08:06:59 Re: Question regarding performance (large objects involved)
Previous Message btober 2003-06-26 07:44:51 Re: How many fields in a table are too many