Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: More then 1600 columns?

From: Dmitriy Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Clark C(dot) Evans" <cce(at)clarkevans(dot)com>
Cc: 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>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: More then 1600 columns?
Date: 2010-11-12 21:29:48
Message-ID: AANLkTi=2RX_uxXsfCWTjWAOgenQKuQpBAO_o0mJCCFTh@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
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.
>
> Best,
>
> Clark
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>



-- 
// Dmitriy.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Rob SargentDate: 2010-11-12 21:40:11
Subject: Re: More then 1600 columns?
Previous:From: Clark C. EvansDate: 2010-11-12 21:25:38
Subject: Re: More then 1600 columns?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group