Seems like a more effective layout would be
create table tracking (
i_slot int4,
i_port int4,
i_item int4 );
maybe i'm missing somthing, but a 1600 row table is tiny, a 1600 column
table would be very difficult to manage, and poor design.
Gavin
Williams, Travis L, NPONS wrote:
>The reason we have that is we have 23 slots in a shelf (of equipment)
>and we have 23 ports in a slot. We are tracking 3 different items per
>port.. so we have 23 x 23 which is 529 x 3 which is 1587 individual
>items to track of which they are all a single digit. You add into that
>some misc. stuff like shelf name and poll_time and it becomes a mess..
>I just split them into 3 seperate tables.
>
>Travis
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe Tomcat [mailto:tomcat@mobile.mp]
>Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 1:35 PM
>To: Williams, Travis L, NPONS
>Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
>Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 1600 Column limit..
>
>
>On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 17:23, Williams, Travis L, NPONS wrote:
>
>
>>Is this set in stone.. or is there somewhere you can change this.. and
>>
>>
>will changing it cause upgrade problems in the future..
>
>If you are trying to have 1600 columns in a table, you probably have
>made a design mistake in your table design. You should take a look at
>some database design books to see if you can change the structure.
>
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Scanned by Sophos Anti-Virus v3.59TPOS, MIMEDefang v2.19,
and Spam Assassin v2.31 on satchel.bteg.net
