|
|
Posted by panic attack on 08/04/06 12:39
thanks for your fast answers.
there is one last thing that i need to ask...!!
now i decided to partition the data vertically
at this point there is one thing i need to ask...
now here is the case :
after partitioning the table it is gonna look like this:
table 1
-------------------------------------------------
column1 column2 ... column250
record1 record2 ... record250
table2
--------------------------------------------------
column1 column2 ... column250
record1 record2 ... record250
at this point i need to combine these tables( mentioned above)
vertically right?
how am i gonna do the combine operation after partitioning the table
into 2 or 3?
i tried to combine them by using "UNION" operator but i guess it works
for combining the tables horizontally.
thanks a lot
best regards.
tunc ovacik
Erland Sommarskog yazdi:
> 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
[Back to original message]
|