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

dias wrote:

> 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

If it helps tell them that the head of the Oracle Application Development Certificate program at the University of Washington offered the opinion that the cost of not redesigning will likely be higher than the cost of coding around the current design.

Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp Received on Mon Feb 17 2003 - 15:21:42 CST