CODEWITHSUNDEEP
database-design
Eli Courtwright
Eli Courtwright

Reputation: 192891

Best to have hundreds of columns or split into multiple tables?

I'm designing a database of statistics about the operation of mechanical equipment. Each batch of data will contain hundreds of statistics, so I'm trying to decide whether to create a single table with hundreds of columns or to split it up into multiple tables, each containing related statistics. For example, I could have one table containing the statistics related to malfunctions, another table with the statistics related to jams, etc.

Using multiple tables would make the system more complex overall, though conceptually it might be easier for me to deal with several smaller tables than one big one.

Would there be any performance benefits to splitting things up? It seems like querying a table with a few dozen columns would probably be faster than querying one with hundreds of columns.

Does anyone have any experience with this sort of thing? I'm using Oracle for this project, although this is something I'll likely run into with out databases in the future, so answers for any database would be appreciated.

Upvotes: 9

Views: 7082

Answers (6)

Tony Andrews
Tony Andrews

Reputation: 132570

I think we need to know more about your design to answer properly. For example, I'm curious that there could be lots of columns relating to malfunctions, lots (of different ones) relating to jams etc. (Isn't a jam just a kind of malfunction anyway?)

Is your design normalised? Presumably you don't have columns like "jam1", "jam2", etc.?!

Assuming the design is good and normalised, the decision as to whether to have one wide table or many narrower ones is a trade-off between various factors:

  • Do all/most records have statistics of all types? Yes => one table, no => many
  • Do you often need to query statistics of all types together? Yes => one table, no => many
  • Do you maintain all the different stats together in the same screen? Yes => one table, no => many
  • Are you likely to hit any database limits e.g. max 1000 columns per table?

Whichever way you go, you can use views to present the alternative structure for the convenience of the developer:

  • One table: many views that select stats of particular types
  • Many tables: a view that joins all the tables together

Update

From your comments, I now know that you have counts of jams at 40 different locations on the machine, and other types of stats are counts of a similar nature. This suggests the following table design:

create table machines (machine_id ... primary key, ...);
create table machine_stats 
   ( machine_id references machines
   , stat_group -- 'jams', 'malfunctions' etc.
   , stat_name  -- 'under the hood', 'behind the door' etc.
   , stat_count 
   );

As someone commented below, these allows you to sum stats more easily - within or across stat types. It is also easily extended if a new stat needs to be added to a stat type.

Upvotes: 11

Paul Lefebvre
Paul Lefebvre

Reputation: 6396

I tend to not like tables with too many columns. One option you might consider is to store the stats as rows in a stats table:

CREATE TABLE Statistics (id AS INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, statusType As VarChar,
statusValue As Float);

Then you just add a new row with for each status you're tracking. This is a lot cleaner from a DB perspective, but it does make getting at the data trickier for reports.

Upvotes: 1

ChrisW
ChrisW

Reputation: 56083

Do you mean 100s of types of statistics?

Some medical databases have tried a schema or idiom which is called "entity attribute value" or "EAV" (you can Google these terms): the reasoning is that there are innumerable different types of fact about a patient, which may or may not have been captured for any given patient, and that EAV is a better way to store this than to have innumerable different columns in a table.

Beware however that EAV is controversial: some say it's a "code smell" and typical newbie mistake; others say that it's useful occasionally (or rarely) but depends on (specifying and having) good support for metadata.

Upvotes: 1

Jeremy
Jeremy

Reputation: 9

In this situation I would create a couple of tables. One would be the machine table. One would be a problem lookup table. Finally, a junction table between the two that also contains info related to the status. Maintenance will be easier and writing crazy reports will be easier. Also, adding new types of statuses will be easier as well.

machine
id
name
description

status_flag
id
caption

machine_history
machine_id
status_flag_id
information

Then you can do stuff like: select count(distinct machine_id) from machine_history where status_flag_id = 23 and information < 5;

The only thing is the information field in the machine_history table may need to contain numbers or characters. If that's the case, I would create two information fields so that you don't impede performance.

Also I'm assuming there is a programming component to this that will allow you to create some methods for easily working with this data.

Upvotes: 0

SmacL
SmacL

Reputation: 22922

When I see hundreds of columns in a table, i tend to suspect the data schema hasn't been properly normalised. Are the hundreds of columns really unique, or are they groups of similar things that can be normalised out into smaller tables?

If you can reduce the number of columns, you are liable to reduce the total amount of data transacted and hence improve performance at a number of levels. For example, if you have a record that contains 1000 bytes of data, and you want to change 1 byte for each record, you risk fetching and storing 999 bytes unnecessarily. This does impact performance.

Upvotes: 4

duffymo
duffymo

Reputation: 308733

Normalization ensures that you don't repeat data in your schema.

There are limits to how far you should go, of course. JOINS for 7 tables or more are not performant.

But one monster table? I'd break it up.

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions