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

Re: How many fields in a table are too many

From: Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>
To: <btober(at)seaworthysys(dot)com>, <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: <m_tessier(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: How many fields in a table are too many
Date: 2003-06-26 19:33:51
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
On Thursday 26 June 2003 12:44 am, 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... :)

Of course they would. :)

As long as we are playing "who's is biggest", I have one with 900+ 
attributes (normalized) but there is a big warning - if you have a 
query that returns hundreds of columns it will be very, very slow. 
Slow as in tens of seconds to do a "select * from fattable" when 
fattable has <1000 records.

Tom Lane looked at the profile data I sent and had the issue added to 
the TODO list some time back. Check the archives for "Terrible 
performance on wide selects" if you are interested. I believe the 
problem is still on the TODO list under the category of "caching".


In response to


pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Bryan ZeraDate: 2003-06-26 19:44:10
Subject: Dependancies on Tables
Previous:From: Karsten HilbertDate: 2003-06-26 18:48:41
Subject: Re: PlPython

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