Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 10/21/05 00:53

Steve Jorgensen (nospam@nospam.nospam) writes:
> 1. I find that, in my applications, most tables don't have a very large
> number of columns, and most of the columns in a table are likely to be
> useful in cases where any of them are.

Serge mentioned in one of his posts, that there were tables with
50 columns. Maybe this in itself is a token of poor design, but we have
several tables in our system in the 50-100 range. (In fact, I found
the other day, in the corner of the database that I am not responsible
a 213-column table!)

But with this size, the risk for columns that have grown obsolete is
starting to increase.


--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp

• Next in forum: Re: historical data
• Prev in forum: Re: Dates in a date range
• Thread view: Re: Using "SELECT * " is a bad practice even when using a VIEW instead of a table?

[Reply to this message]