Is there a performance cost to having large numbers of columns in a table, aside from the increase in the total amount of data? If so, would splitting the table into a few smaller ones help the situation?
Share
Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Is there a performance cost to having large numbers of columns in a table, aside from the increase in the total amount of data? If so, would splitting the table into a few smaller ones help the situation?
If you really need all those columns (that is, it’s not just a sign that you have a poorly designed table) then by all means keep them.
It’s not a performance problem, as long as you
If you have 30, or even 200 columns it’s no problem to the database. You’re just making it work a little harder if you want to retrieve all those columns at once.
But having a lot of columns is a bad code smell; I can’t think of any legitimate reason a well-designed table would have this many columns and you may instead be needing a one-many relationship with some other, much simpler, table.