Re: More then 1600 columns? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Dmitriy Igrishin
Subject Re: More then 1600 columns?
Date
Msg-id AANLkTi=2RX_uxXsfCWTjWAOgenQKuQpBAO_o0mJCCFTh@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: More then 1600 columns?  ("Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com>)
Responses Re: More then 1600 columns?  ("Mark Mitchell" <mmitchell@riccagroup.com>)
List pgsql-general
I can't imagine how to maintain a database with tables with
1600 columns... I can't imagine how to simple work with this
garbage of data via SQL...

2010/11/13 Clark C. Evans <cce@clarkevans.com>
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 21:10 +0000, "Dann Corbit" wrote:
> If (for access) the single table seems simpler, then
> a view can be used.

Even if you "partition" the columns in the instrument
over N tables, you still can't query it in a single
result set.   The limit is quite deep in PostgreSQL
and extends to tuples, including views and in-memory
query results.

I find that partitioning does work, but it requires extra
care on the part of the application developer that really
shouldn't be necessary.

Best,

Clark

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general



--
// Dmitriy.


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Clark C. Evans"
Date:
Subject: Re: More then 1600 columns?
Next
From: Rob Sargent
Date:
Subject: Re: More then 1600 columns?