Table(s) definition problem

From: Robert Stearns <rstearns1241_at_charter.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:11:29 -0500
Message-ID: <403E6F11.4070800_at_charter.net>

I have a very wide table (over 1000 attributes). I can group the attributes into several, ~20, disjoint sets where the elements of each set occur together. Call these sets of attributes G1, G2, ..., Gn. One set, say G1 defines the existence of the row, with a1, a member of G1 as its key.

Is it better practice to have one large table with all the attributes in it, even though there will commonly be several missing Gi in each row, or should there be a table for each G with key a1? If the latter, what is the form, assuming SQL, of queries which behave as if you had one large table? Received on Thu Feb 26 2004 - 23:11:29 CET