90 columns on my table - now what?

[xloop]

Hi,

I have 90 columns on my Jobs table now and i'm a bit concerned.

No queries are running slow or anything but more columns keep creaping in, although i'd say 20% of these columns are bit columns it's still an awful lot for one table, no?

Is it worth while creating another one to one table?

This means there will be twice as many records, two rows for each job.

What's the best way to turn?

Thanks

 

[fredericofonseca]

As long as you dont have duplicated data on the columns (i.e. table is normalized) then having 90 columns is not much and is not a problem either.

Whether you can and/or must split the table will depend on the data you have on it, and that is something we still dont know.

Regards

Frederico Fonseca
SysSoft Integrated Ltd

http://www.syssoft-int.com

 

[vongrunt]

> Is it worth while creating another one to one table?

It depends - on number of rows, max/average row size and column usage. General idea about "vertical partitioning" is to put sparse/less frequently used columns into 1:1 table and join only where necessary. Something like "general info" vs "additional details". If common queries take columns from both partitions then all that stuff is not worth a trouble. In other words, table redesign without extra care about queries is job half done.

------
Theory: everybody knows everything, nothing works
Practice: everything works, nobody knows why

 

[SQLSister]

And of course it depends on what is in the 90 columns. Sometimes you might be better served by making a one to many relational table to store the data in. YOu would do this if the columns are things like phone1, phone2, phone3.

Questions about posting. See faq183-874
Click here to help with Hurricane Relief