Re: Very long "WHERE" list.

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:49:33 -0700
Message-ID: <1089503388.924766@yasure>

Mikito Harakiri wrote:

> Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1089441801.264221_at_yasure>...
>

>>Mikito Harakiri wrote:
>>
>>>Now, please enlighten me why list of 1,
>>>10, and 100 elements is OK, but list of 1000 elements is not?
>>
>>For the same reason that a table with two, ten, or maybe even 50 columns
>>is OK but a table with 500 columns is not. And if you need me to answer
>>the question you likely couldn't normalize a schema under threat of
>>having to get a job you were qualified to perform: Or worse.

>
>
> According to oracle syntax, table with 500 columns is OK. I think we
> understand each other, as essentially we are arguing "is the number
> 500 big", which is a nonsence question to ask.
>
> FYI, infamous Oracle Applications has a several of tables with more
> than 300 columns. Google "stupidest table I ever saw". Not to mention
> their notorious "guidline" not to use FK constraints. If your flipping
> burgers suggestion applies anywhere, it should start right there at
> oracle.

You won't find me disagreeing.

Daniel Morgan Received on Sat Jul 10 2004 - 18:49:33 CDT