Re: How many fields in a table are too many
От | |
---|---|
Тема | Re: How many fields in a table are too many |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 64479.216.238.112.88.1056657800.squirrel@$HOSTNAME обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: How many fields in a table are too many (Steve Crawford <scrawford@pinpointresearch.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: How many fields in a table are too many
Re: How many fields in a table are too many |
Список | pgsql-general |
> On Thursday 26 June 2003 12:44 am, btober@seaworthysys.com wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:17:12AM -0400, btober@seaworthysys.com >> > >> > wrote: >> >> > I have a table with 13 fields. Is that >> >> > too many fields for one table. >> >> > Mark >> >> >> >> Thirteen? No way. I've got you beat with 21: >> > >> > Pfft! Is *that* all? I've got a table with 116 fields. >> > > As long as we are playing "who's is biggest", I have one with 900+ > attributes (normalized) but there is a big warning - if you have a > query that returns hundreds of columns it will be very, very slow. > Slow as in tens of seconds to do a "select * from fattable" when > fattable has <1000 records. > Is the SELECT * the only circumstance? That is, if you specify a small number of columns, does the response improve even though the table actually has that large number of columns but is only be asked to supply a column-limited result set? What about when you limit the rows but not the columns with a WHERE clause? And of course the last case when you limit both rows and columns? ~Berend Tober
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: