Re: max # of columns in the table (again!)

From: Howard J. Rogers <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 09:44:44 +1100
Message-ID: <pan.2003.02.15.22.44.43.791752@yahoo.com.au>

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 11:18:27 +0100, Tanel Poder wrote:

> Sybrand,
>
> since in the row format there's only one byte for column count, chaining
> within the same block is used to have another 255 columns, so if we'd have
> 600 column row in a block, it'd be chained twice to the same block, if block
> space permits.
>
> Tanel.

There ought to be a different name for this,then, since 'chaining' should always ring alarm bells with DBAs. Chaining within the same block is a mathematical curiosity as you point out, but wouldn't cause I/O issues.

On the other hand, you'd have to question the design of a table with that many columns, so maybe the name 'chaining' in this context is still valid!

Regards
HJR Received on Sat Feb 15 2003 - 16:44:44 CST