Efficiency Question

In terms of the time a query would take to return, is there any difference
if a table has, say, 200 records and 100 columns vs. 100 records and 200
columns? Ultimately, I'm trying to figure out if speed needs to be a
consideration in determining whether to orient a new table horizontally or
vertically.
Thanks,
James
Size of the data returned rather than number of columns and rows is a more
relevant statistic but overall performance depends on other factors (such as
indexing) that are at least as important.

> Ultimately, I'm trying to figure out if speed needs to be a
> consideration in determining whether to orient a new table horizontally or
> vertically.
I would suggest that you're going about your table design the wrong way!
Normalize your design in (at minimum) Third Normal Form to start with. Once
you have done that you can test performance and make any optimizations
necesssary. Correct design doesn't normally involve choosing between
"horizontal" and "vertical" orientations of data.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Well, the design of this table is relatively simple and straightforward...if
we had even reasonable hardware. I've been having to design tables around
poor hardware performance...trying to keep as little data as possible in any
given table, in order to prevent a meltdown.
The design was fine until the hardware hit the proverbial wall and
everything started crashing when even a moderate size query was run. So
instead of sinking a few thousand dollars into new hardware, they sank a few
thousand dollars into man hours, trying to solve the problem with intellect.
So far it's been relatively unsuccessful.
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:DJOdnT3qqPhoSmbdRVn-ow@.giganews.com...
> Size of the data returned rather than number of columns and rows is a more
> relevant statistic but overall performance depends on other factors (such
as[vbcol=seagreen]
> indexing) that are at least as important.
or
> I would suggest that you're going about your table design the wrong way!
> Normalize your design in (at minimum) Third Normal Form to start with.
Once
> you have done that you can test performance and make any optimizations
> necesssary. Correct design doesn't normally involve choosing between
> "horizontal" and "vertical" orientations of data.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>
|||> In terms of the time a query would take to return, is there any difference
> if a table has, say, 200 records and 100 columns vs. 100 records and 200
> columns? Ultimately, I'm trying to figure out if speed needs to be a
> consideration in determining whether to orient a new table horizontally or
> vertically.
Your table design should be driven by normalizing the entities you are
trying to represent, not optimizing number of columns vs. number of rows.
If performance is a problem due to hardware constraints, fix the hardware.
Anything you do in the context of the above will be a bandaid at best, and
will only serve to yield *different* performance problems down the line,
IMHO.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)