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

Hum, ...

The decision will be taken this week, I'll keep you informed ...

DA Morgan <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3E4FD808.24DDAA84_at_exesolutions.com>...
> dias wrote:
>
> > Thank you all,
> >
> > I agree, it's a design problem.
> >
> > But I'm serching for arguments to prove that this design is bad.
> >
> > I have to migrate data from an old application to Oracle, the database
> > users, it's a DTWH, don't want to change the data model, and prefer to
> > work with wide tables, rather than small ones whith joins.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > ydias_at_hotmail.com (dias) wrote in message news:<55a68b47.0302142315.39934901_at_posting.google.com>...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > 1000 columns is the max for a table (8i and 9i).
> > >
> > > Oracle (8i) has an internal limit of 255. That means that if any
> > > columns beyond 255 are not null, that row will always be chained.
> > >
> > > Is this still the case in 9i ?
> > >
> > > Thanks
>
> If those that control the design are reluctant to either (A) admit their mistake or (B) consider that
> there may be a beter way you are likely, for political rather than technical reasons, stuck.
>
> The best argument I can suggest you make to them involves an estimate, in dollars and hours, of the
> cost of dealing with their nonsense.
>
> Daniel Morgan
Received on Mon Feb 17 2003 - 10:49:08 CST