Re: Table(s) definition problem

"Robert Stearns" <rstearns1241_at_charter.net> wrote in message news: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?

Assuming the availability of views, what's the difference? Received on Fri Feb 27 2004 - 02:44:12 CET