Tony wrote:
> Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1090377455.197311_at_yasure>...
>
>>Jeremy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <1090301352.683762_at_yasure>, Daniel Morgan says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is just about no excuse for having more than 50 columns in a table.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Why is that then? If I have an object that has (say) 80 attributes how
>>>would you suggest that it should be modeled? I am looking at a table
>>>here with 193 columns and, whilst it appears ungainly, it reflects the
>>>need.
>>
>>I'd have to know more and as I said to Galen "just about" means it is
>>not a hard and fast rule.
>>
>>But to answer your question:
>>
>>CREATE TABLE parent (
>>obj_id NUMBER,
>>obj_name VARCHAR2(30));
>>
>>CREATE TABLE attribute (
>>obj_id NUMBER,
>>attrnum NUMBER(2),
>>attrval VARCHAR2(10));
>>
>>Is one way to approach the problem.
>>
>>As I stated before ... think vertically ... not horizontally.
>
>
> That was a joke, I hope? You are not seriously advocating the
> egregious generic attribute/value table that database "designers" with
> about 6 months' experience are always so excited about? Please tell
> me that was a joke!
As serious as a heart attack.
Daniel Morgan
Received on Wed Jul 21 2004 - 08:24:51 CDT