Noel wrote:
>>There is absolutely no excuse for a table with 303 columns.
>>Well there may be one or two good excuses. But in 35+ years in IT I've
>>yet to see it.
>>Fix the real problem ... make your schema relational.
>
>
> Hello.
> Its like warehouse table.
> I don't know how 303 got into my mind.
> I'm sorry that i didn't check first.
> Table has actually 248 columns and over 17 millions of rows.
>
> TYPE COUNT(*)
> --------------- ---------
> DATE 5
> NUMBER 218
> VARCHAR2 25
>
>
> most of them are numerics and store values
> of several account balances for each clients in database.
> It is filled every day to keep values up to date, but there is
> need to access previous values.
> It had to be created and managed that way, becouse all of data
> comes from other, non Oracle application.
>
> To find a 'too short' column i had to search only 25 columns,
> with hope that there is no violation in any of numeric field.
>
> And finally, since new application comes, this table soon become a relict,
> so there is no need to rebuild it in any way.
> New application joins two old applications.
>
> --
> TomekB
248, 303, it makes no difference. Any number of 50 is highly indicative
of a bad design.
--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 14:37:02 CDT
