I can't imagine how to maintain a database with tables with
1600 columns... I can't imagine how to simple work with this
garbage of data via SQL...
2010/11/13 Clark C. Evans <cce(at)clarkevans(dot)com>
> 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.
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Rob Sargent||Date: 2010-11-12 21:40:11|
|Subject: Re: More then 1600 columns?|
|Previous:||From: Clark C. Evans||Date: 2010-11-12 21:25:38|
|Subject: Re: More then 1600 columns? |