|
|
Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 08/04/06 10:50
panic attack (tunc.ovacik@gmail.com) writes:
> ofcourse it has 543 columns :)))
> the data includes records for about 6 years, 20 quarters and 60 months
> back data and for each period it has 6 parameters and some other
> columns info(text).
> so if you do the math;
> (6 * 6) + ( 20 * 6 ) + ( 60 * 6 ) = 516 columns.
That sounds like 516 rows rows to me. Not 516 columns. At least with a
proper data model. Or this a staging table?
> what do you think Erland? do we have a chance to get over this problem?
> or it is not possible to get the data into SQL Server 2000?
As NiTiN said, you will have to split the table in two vertically. Note
that it does not have to affect queries, as you can construct views that
combine them. You would then have to use a format file to make it possible
to only selected columns.
> NOTE : By the way there is another data that we are importing to Sql
> Server 2000.
> and it has 124 columns. no problems occur while getting the data into
> Sql Server 2000. if we apply the same logic as you did ,
> 124 * 255 = 31620
> so it is also bigger than 8060. but we are doing the operation without
> any problems.
> it seems that there is a contradiction doesnt it?
No. What matters is the actual row size, not the possible max.
> what about SQL Server 2005? is there any limitation at sql server 2005
> about the row size?
No. SQL 2005 is yet another option. SQL 2005 permits rows to span multiple
pages.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|