Newbie # of columns per table

What are the peformance implications of designing tables
that are in excess of 170 columns per table?
Thanks,
Kim> What are the peformance implications of designing tables
> that are in excess of 170 columns per table?
If your application is read intensive, the performance could be acceptable.
If it is write intensive, it really depends whether you have a lot of
denormalized data. Ayway, you should check your design from conceptual and
logical poit of view - 170 columns seems like you need some normalization.
--
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
FAQ from Neil & others at: http://www.sqlserverfaq.com
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
PASS - the definitive, global community
for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org|||The application database acts both as an oltp and a dss.
I know, I know.. It's third party application which has a
built in module to create tables, these tables are
currently being built by the end user. I'm also concerned
because these large tables are created with the 90% of
the columns defined as varchar(50) NULL and 90% of the
nullable columns have absolutely no data entries..
>--Original Message--
>> What are the peformance implications of designing
tables
>> that are in excess of 170 columns per table?
>If your application is read intensive, the performance
could be acceptable.
>If it is write intensive, it really depends whether you
have a lot of
>denormalized data. Ayway, you should check your design
from conceptual and
>logical poit of view - 170 columns seems like you need
some normalization.
>--
>Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
>FAQ from Neil & others at: http://www.sqlserverfaq.com
>Please reply only to the newsgroups.
>PASS - the definitive, global community
>for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org
>
>.
>|||> The application database acts both as an oltp and a dss.
> I know, I know.. It's third party application which has a
> built in module to create tables, these tables are
> currently being built by the end user. I'm also concerned
> because these large tables are created with the 90% of
> the columns defined as varchar(50) NULL and 90% of the
> nullable columns have absolutely no data entries..
Then the problem is a little bit smaller... Varchar columns do not occupy
space if they are empty.
--
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
FAQ from Neil & others at: http://www.sqlserverfaq.com
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
PASS - the definitive, global community
for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org