Tony wrote:
> 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...
Hopefully you realize I was serious about the model versus 1000 columns
but hardly the "egregious generic attribute/value table."
Daniel Morgan
Received on Thu Jul 22 2004 - 00:36:51 CDT
