Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1090416315.735022_at_yasure>...
> 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.
Oh, OK... Queries on that are going to be fun...
Received on Wed Jul 21 2004 - 14:54:07 CDT
