Re: seeking advise on DB tables, split or not split

"SarwarMD" <sarwarmd_at_aol.com> wrote in message news:20000409132740.19033.00000499_at_ng-fh1.aol.com...
> Hi,
> Your first choice seems better.
>

Mohammed,

I'm surprised that you say this. (The two choices were 1.) a single humungous table, vs. 2.) splitting a 50-column table into parts and paying a supposed performance hit for joins later.)

First, why is there going to be a performance hit? Is every query going to use all fifty columns?

Second, I thought the whole point of the relational revolution was to enable better maintenance -- the major cost in all of softwaredom -- by breaking huge kludges into manageable parts.

Why are you recommending the bad ol' days, when we have tools now to let things be split into rational and sensible sub-sections, in this case related tables?

                                                        -dlj.