Subject | RE: [IBO] joins?SQL? |
---|---|
Author | Claudio Valderrama C. |
Post date | 2001-05-18T00:19:05Z |
> -----Original Message-----Generally speaking, more fields means greater record length and greater
> From: Daniel Bertin [mailto:daniel@...]
> Sent: Martes 8 de Mayo de 2001 18:33
>
> Hi all
> I need some direction? I'm converting a progress database(BDE ODBC) to
> IB60(firebird) and come across a huge table 100 fields.
record length means IB will have worse performance. In the "documentation"
section of my site, there's an article called "Practical Use of the
RDB$DB_KEY" where Bjørge Sæther touches briefly the issue.
- I don't believe you need to display 100 fields at a time. Put the ones you
always show in one table and the less used in another, so you'll get records
from the less used table only on demand.
- If you have large varchars that you don't show all the time, convert them
to text blobs.
- I never have understood the need to show 300 columns at the time. People
have a natural limit in the coverage of information they handle at a time;
most user will demand every field that *might* be required, will read 5 in
practice but will complain for bad performance due 10 retrieving 200 columns
and 300 thousand rows.
C.
---------
Claudio Valderrama C.
Ingeniero en Informática - Consultor independiente
http://www.cvalde.com - http://firebird.sourceforge.net