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 |
|
BigRetina
Posting Yak Master
144 Posts |
 Posted - 2002-09-05 : 09:20:55
|
| Salute..Would 85 fields in an Employees Master table be reasonable?.. or too much?..i mean on the average should I reach such number of fields per table or should i try to re-design or re-normalize?I would love to hear some expereinces!!Thanks In Advance |
|
|
AndrewMurphy
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2916 Posts |
Posted - 2002-09-05 : 09:27:10
|
| sounds like a lot alright....and if you end up with different fields to store different values to the same question....ie a "male" field, a "female" field....when you should have a "gender" field........then you know you are in difficulty....if (without giving away state secrets) you can post the table structure and some (sample) data....you'll get a better opinion/advice on practical steps to improve things..... |
 |
|
|
robvolk
Most Valuable Yak
15732 Posts |
Posted - 2002-09-05 : 09:30:10
|
| If each column contains distinct information, then 85 columns isn't too much. I've dealt with account master info tables that had more. The only problem you might face is the 8K row size limit, depending on how much data each column will hold.You can always put them into multiple tables, but you WILL see performance slowdowns. Multiple tables will not be stored on the same data pages and I/O time will increase. If this table needs to be fast then keeping all the columns in one is a good idea. |
|
|
|
Page47
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2878 Posts |
Posted - 2002-09-05 : 09:57:00
|
| 're-normalize' seems to imply that there is more than one way to normalize a schema. I don't know that that is true ... hummmmm ... I would think that if you follow the rules of normalization twice with the same data, you would end up with the same design twice.Jay White{0} |
|
|
|
nr
SQLTeam MVY
12543 Posts |
Posted - 2002-09-05 : 11:51:53
|
quote:
're-normalize' seems to imply that there is more than one way to normalize a schema.
Normalisation depends on business knowledge - which is usually tainted by assumptions about the way the system will be used.Of course I always stick to my first asumptions no matter how many people tell me I'm wrong  but other people may get different designs - hopefully only in detail.Make sure that all the data in the table is really dependent. Also make sure there are no repeated fields.You can also look at the fields that will be accessed frequently or are updateable and split the table up like that.==========================================Cursors are useful if you don't know sql.DTS can be used in a similar way.Beer is not cold and it isn't fizzy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number Of Fields