Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10DE32E0085 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:14:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16194-10 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:14:50 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.175]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AACD2E0062 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:14:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so3520198wff.28 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:14:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=nQcdEPewSQns1yT0JI1ZK4AiCeEyC1to6DcB/sVnxoI=; b=F7G60KqKMYzUIKxiLV0wVVo9EMhcE+j1cCtaYFbI2hQZq3nEDG0aDu1PGIGErk+OcM3fecUwanY/aHJ6wDwkq8MoQpGWpxqD1N2TnwymOD1xaleUFoSysb71AwxvGGziGNHAH08hgcr0CHIyIsNnFXe11UjBtC6mkT3HfBGFopo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=EmztWozDwsuFmoWrJNXZieqnu9D1MuXOSa85jeX3Sq8P38Wvl4jYOBWolmdVcvi6lbcEtK/M9EBQ7DOxbuC3VxFgQnM0bGauJzuHoMCNXoYl9m7q07wMsn9odbyYSc1qjcYwdIr/nClwoT9nF4SGUmnrpiQerarIa9dIAySZ8Hk= Received: by 10.142.89.9 with SMTP id m9mr1991059wfb.35.1209312889712; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:14:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.125.21 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:14:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1cbd6f830804270914r1e666210n987b0798faf59656@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:14:49 -0400 From: "Mag Gam" To: "Jonah H. Harris" Subject: Re: Curious about wide tables. Cc: "Jean-David Beyer" , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <36e682920804270906i7b5c5ab9v4e06688df85f810@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2710_15483184.1209312889710" References: <48147917.8000108@verizon.net> <36e682920804270906i7b5c5ab9v4e06688df85f810@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200804/202 X-Sequence-Number: 30741 ------=_Part_2710_15483184.1209312889710 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Any chance this could be a view? On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Jean-David Beyer > wrote: > > In another thread, the O.P. had a question about a large table with over > 100 > > columns. Is this usual? Whenever I make a database, which is not often, > it > > ends up with tables that rarely have over to columns, and usually less > than > > that. When normalized, my tables rarely get very wide. > > Yes, even in several well-normalized schemas I've seen tables with > over 250 columns. > > > Without criticising the O.P., since I know nothing about his > application, I > > am curious how it comes about that such a wide table is justified. > > The few applications I've seen with large tables were an insurance > system, an manufacturing system, and a sensor-recording system (which > was more optimal to store as an attribute-per-instance-of-time than a > separate tuple containing the time, sensor, and value). > > -- > Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 > EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 > 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com > Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/ > > -- > Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql > ------=_Part_2710_15483184.1209312889710 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Any chance this could be a view?


On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Jean-David Beyer
<jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
> In another thread, the O.P. had a question about a large table with over 100
>  columns. Is this usual? Whenever I make a database, which is not often, it
>  ends up with tables that rarely have over to columns, and usually less than
>  that. When normalized, my tables rarely get very wide.

Yes, even in several well-normalized schemas I've seen tables with
over 250 columns.

>  Without criticising the O.P., since I know nothing about his application, I
>  am curious how it comes about that such a wide table is justified.

The few applications I've seen with large tables were an insurance
system, an manufacturing system, and a sensor-recording system (which
was more optimal to store as an attribute-per-instance-of-time than a
separate tuple containing the time, sensor, and value).

--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com
Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

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

------=_Part_2710_15483184.1209312889710--