Re: More then 1600 columns?
| От | Dmitriy Igrishin |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: More then 1600 columns? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | AANLkTi=2RX_uxXsfCWTjWAOgenQKuQpBAO_o0mJCCFTh@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: More then 1600 columns? ("Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: More then 1600 columns?
|
| Список | 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...
--
// Dmitriy.
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:Even if you "partition" the columns in the instrument
> If (for access) the single table seems simpler, then
> a view can be used.
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.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: