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

Re: More then 1600 columns?

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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.  



In response to


pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Dmitriy IgrishinDate: 2010-11-12 21:29:48
Subject: Re: More then 1600 columns?
Previous:From: Dann CorbitDate: 2010-11-12 21:10:41
Subject: Re: More then 1600 columns?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group