From: | "Mark Mitchell" <mmitchell(at)riccagroup(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: More then 1600 columns? |
Date: | 2010-11-12 15:38:03 |
Message-ID: | c3a5a583-17b8-42f8-b585-e6bbcd0f82b3@riccagroup.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Yes I understand that this is "bad design" but what we are doing is storing each form field in a survey in its own column. For very long surveys we end up with thousands of elements.
I know storing in an array is possible but it makes it so much easier to query the data set when each element is in its own field. I had lots of comments on why I should not do this and the possible alternatives and I thank everyone for their input but no one answered the question about compiling with a higher block size to get more columns. Can anyone answer that?
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 12:24 AM
To: Mark Mitchell
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] More then 1600 columns?
"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?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Mitchell | 2010-11-12 15:49:04 | Re: More then 1600 columns? |
Previous Message | Paul Taylor | 2010-11-12 15:27:41 | Can you check in SQL if a fields can be encoded using specified charset |