|
| sql server table with 100 to 200 columns |
| Iniciado por guest, 03,may. 2018 18:05 - 4 respuestas |
| |
| | | |
|
| |
| Publicado el 03,mayo 2018 - 18:05 |
First time I see a program where database contain tables where each table has 100 to 200 columns .
my question
1. is this normal ?
2. will making more columns give better performance ? than more tables? |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| Publicado el 03,mayo 2018 - 18:36 |
Hi
It's always better to have more tables that are linked to the keys |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| Publicado el 03,mayo 2018 - 19:10 |
If you use select * or hread??? functions you will read all the columns and probably you only need some of them, the network traffic is huge without any need.
If you use queries and only get the columns you need it's not a major problem if your indexes are well defined. |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| Publicado el 04,mayo 2018 - 21:30 |
Quote
Paulo Oliveira
If you use select * or hread??? functions you will read all the columns and probably you only need some of them, the network traffic is huge without any need.
If you use queries and only get the columns you need it's not a major problem if your indexes are well defined.
Thats essentially correct but on a table with 200 columns the number of indexes could well be 50+
This will cause a serious overhead when CRUD operations are performed.
Of course this could come from a 'Big Data' type DB where, I'm led to believe, anything goes pretty much. |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| Publicado el 08,mayo 2018 - 13:45 |
Hi DerekT,
Not Big Data, just normal MS SQL . if you familiar with "EXACT" , take a look at the DB , many of tables contain more than 100 columns . if that not make complicate, the table, columns and fields name not in english :rp:
I notice one advantage of having all in one table , locking record become easy. |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | | | |
| | |
|