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: 4CDCDB94.2080300@hogranch.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
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

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dmitriy Igrishin 2010-11-12 07:17:50 Re: More then 1600 columns?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-11-12 05:24:11 Re: More then 1600 columns?