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

Re: More then 1600 columns?

From: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: More then 1600 columns?
Date: 2010-11-12 06:15:48
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
On 11/11/10 9:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Mark Mitchell"<mmitchell(at)riccagroup(dot)com>  writes:
>> Is there are hard limit of 1600 that you cannot get around?
> Yes.
> Generally, wanting more than a few dozen columns is a good sign that you
> need to rethink your schema design.  What are you trying to accomplish
> exactly?

indeed.    I'd say a good read on 'data normalization' and the Third 
Normal Form would be in order.

relational databases are *not* spreadsheets (and, for that matter, 
spreadsheets make lousy relational databases)

if these 1600+ elements come from an ORM, you probably need to rethink 
your object model, as no sane object class should have that many members.

In response to


pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Dmitriy IgrishinDate: 2010-11-12 07:17:50
Subject: Re: More then 1600 columns?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-11-12 05:24:11
Subject: Re: More then 1600 columns?

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