Re: Very long "WHERE" list.

From: Mikito Harakiri <mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 10 Jul 2004 10:47:43 -0700
Message-ID: <8a529bb.0407100947.51705019@posting.google.com>

Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1089441801.264221_at_yasure>...
> Mikito Harakiri wrote:
> > Now, please enlighten me why list of 1,
> > 10, and 100 elements is OK, but list of 1000 elements is not?
>
> For the same reason that a table with two, ten, or maybe even 50 columns
> is OK but a table with 500 columns is not. And if you need me to answer
> the question you likely couldn't normalize a schema under threat of
> having to get a job you were qualified to perform: Or worse.

According to oracle syntax, table with 500 columns is OK. I think we understand each other, as essentially we are arguing "is the number 500 big", which is a nonsence question to ask.

FYI, infamous Oracle Applications has a several of tables with more than 300 columns. Google "stupidest table I ever saw". Not to mention their notorious "guidline" not to use FK constraints. If your flipping burgers suggestion applies anywhere, it should start right there at oracle. Received on Sat Jul 10 2004 - 12:47:43 CDT