Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
AjarnMark
SQL Slashing Gunting Master
3246 Posts |
 Posted - 2002-05-10 : 13:43:11
|
| I was reading this thread [url]http://www.sqlteam.com/Forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=15728[/url] in the Access forum here on SQLTeam and my first reaction was 100 Fields in one table ?!?!So I thought I'd ask the question... I know I am working in a world of multiple small databases right now, so maybe that's the issue, but 100 fields in one table to me seems just plain excessive if not stupid (whether in Access or SQL Server or even the O word). I find it hard to believe that a database with something like this is normalized.Am I just living in a world of small databases? Do any of you work with tables like this regularly, and consider them to be designed well? |
|
|
M.E.
Aged Yak Warrior
539 Posts |
Posted - 2002-05-10 : 14:08:05
|
| Ya, your in small database world there. I'm working with one that has oil well records. It's got 108 fields (all misc data like location (by township/range) and other various well data numbers... pressures and the like) including 15 different foriegn keys. damn things got something like 787711 records in it too. for the most part number of fields is just dependant on the data stored in it. I can't see anyway to reduce the number of rows in it because of all the geographical data stored about each well. I guess it's just based on what you need |
 |
|
|
aiken
Aged Yak Warrior
525 Posts |
Posted - 2002-05-10 : 16:15:53
|
| Well, you can always reduce the number of columns by creating multiple join tables. However, I think it really depends on the application.I work with a few tables that have 50-ish fields. It's a lot, but they are tables that get few inserts, and where the fields are always used together, so if I did split it up into multiple tables, I'd always be using the same joins every time I went to reference the master table. What's the point?That said, if a table is going to see a lot of inserts, I think it makes sense to use join tables to reduce page splits. Likewise if you're always going to be using columns 1-20, but columns 21-60 are used in some queries and 61-80 in others, and so on. Cheers-b |
|
|
|
goblyn27
Starting Member
39 Posts |
Posted - 2002-05-12 : 03:19:52
|
| Yeah, I got a couple of tables in one of my website's databases that have about 70 records or so. About 68 of them are bit colums representing checkboxes on a user signup form, so there isnt any normalization to be done here. Its really all a matter of what the data you are working with is. Some tables are very large by their nature and others are not, just as some tables will wind up holding a great many rows in them and others will never ave more than a handful of rows."DuuuDe!! I suck!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collecting Opinions on 100-Field Tables