Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1090377455.197311_at_yasure>...
> Jeremy wrote:
>
> > In article <1090301352.683762_at_yasure>, Daniel Morgan says...
> >
> >>There is just about no excuse for having more than 50 columns in a table.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Why is that then? If I have an object that has (say) 80 attributes how
> > would you suggest that it should be modeled? I am looking at a table
> > here with 193 columns and, whilst it appears ungainly, it reflects the
> > need.
>
> I'd have to know more and as I said to Galen "just about" means it is
> not a hard and fast rule.
>
> But to answer your question:
>
> CREATE TABLE parent (
> obj_id NUMBER,
> obj_name VARCHAR2(30));
>
> CREATE TABLE attribute (
> obj_id NUMBER,
> attrnum NUMBER(2),
> attrval VARCHAR2(10));
>
> Is one way to approach the problem.
>
> As I stated before ... think vertically ... not horizontally.
That was a joke, I hope? You are not seriously advocating the
egregious generic attribute/value table that database "designers" with
about 6 months' experience are always so excited about? Please tell
me that was a joke!
Received on Wed Jul 21 2004 - 04:44:44 CDT
