Re: How many fields in a table are too many

From: <btober(at)seaworthysys(dot)com>
To: <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>
Cc: <btober(at)seaworthysys(dot)com>, <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, <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 20:03:20
Message-ID: 64479.216.238.112.88.1056657800.squirrel@$HOSTNAME
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
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.
>>
>
> 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.
>

Is the SELECT * the only circumstance? That is, if you specify a small
number of columns, does the response improve even though the table
actually has that large number of columns but is only be asked to supply
a column-limited result set? What about when you limit the rows but not
the columns with a WHERE clause? And of course the last case when you
limit both rows and columns?

~Berend Tober

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mikhail Terekhov 2003-06-26 20:16:22 Re: PlPython
Previous Message Bruno Wolff III 2003-06-26 20:02:54 Re: Dependancies on Tables