Re: 23,000 Tables?

Ed Prochak wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I agree with joel, this definitely does not require one table per
> report. It also does not need megacolumn tables either. I've seen and
> worked on what I think are similar systems. Take a step back and
> reconsider your design.
>
> Ed

i would love to. but we don't have the option to normalize the tables, which would be the real best practice approach, because we must have all fields in one table for a given report. i agree that there are numerous better ways to do that, and if i could, i would send the people that built the product we are migrating to on that database design course someone mentioned, but i need an answer to one question, really:

• is it better to have wide tables with 50-70% NULL fields, OR
• 23,000 narrow tables with no NULL fields.

i appreciate everyone's feedback, thanks!

rgds, cd. Received on Wed Nov 15 2006 - 19:33:42 CST