Table with more than 1000 columns

I need to store data from an equipment that logs 1500 parameters every minute. The natural approach would be to create a table where the first column stores the timestamp and the remaining columns the values sampled:
CREATE TABLE parameters (
sample_date date,
param1 float,
param2 float,
param1500 float
However, since there is a limitation of "just" 1000 coluns in Oracle, the table was designed as follows:
CREATE TABLE parameters (
sample_date date,
param_id number(4),
value float
An auxiliar table stores the valid parameters and their ids.
This works fine to store information, however it is very difficult to select data in a natural way.
There are situations where we just need to make a report using a few columns out of the 1500 available. Is it possible to create a view that would make the way we designed the table transparent? Let's say we just need to make a report using params 1,2 and 4. How can we create a view that would return all parameters of a sample in a single row:
sample_date param1 param2 param4
just as if we had the parameters stored in individual columns?
Marco

Not a very efficient and space friendly design to do name-value pairs like that.
Other methods to consider is splitting those 1500 parameters up into groupings of similar parameters, and then have a table per group.
Another option would be to use "vertical table partitioning" (as oppose to the more standard horizontal partitionining provided by the Oracle partition option) - this can be achieved (kind of) in Oracle using clusters.
Sooner or later this name-value design is going to bite you hard. It has 1500 rows where there should be only 1 row. It is not scalable.. and as you're discovering, it is unnatural to use. I would rather change that table and design sooner than later.

Similar Messages

Table with more than 35 columns

Hello All.
How can one work with a table with more than 35 columns
on JDev 9.0.3.3?
My other question is related to this.
Setting Entities's Beans properties from a Session Bean
bought up the error, but when setting from inside the EJB,
the bug stays clear.
Is this right?
Thank you

Thank you all for reply.
Here's my problem:
I have an AS400/DB2 Database, a huge and an old one.
There is many COBOL Programs used to communicate with this DB.
My project is to transfer the database with the same structure and the same contents to a Linux/ORACLE System.
I will not remake the COBOL Programs. I will use the existing one on the Linux System.
So the tables of the new DB should be the same as the old one.
That’s why I can not make a relational DB. I have to make an exact migration.
Unfortunately I have some tables with more than 5000 COLUMNS.
Now my question is:
can I modify the parameters of the ORACE DB to make it accept Tables and Views with more than 1000 columns, If not, is it possible to make a PL/SQL Function that simulate a table, this function will insert/update/select data from many other small tables (<1000 columns). I want to say a method that make the ORACLE DB acting like if it has a table with a huge number of columns;
I know it's crazy but any idea please.

Row chaining in table with more than 255 columns

Hi,
I have a table with 1000 columns.
I saw the following citation: "Any table with more then 255 columns will have chained
rows (we break really wide tables up)."
If I insert a row populated with only the first 3 columns (the others are null), is a row chaining occurred?
I tried to insert a row described above and no row chaining occurred.
As I understand, a row chaining occurs in a table with 1000 columns only when the populated data increases
the block size OR when more than 255 columns are populated. Am I right?
Thanks
dyahav

user10952094 wrote:
Hi,
I have a table with 1000 columns.
I saw the following citation: "Any table with more then 255 columns will have chained
rows (we break really wide tables up)."
If I insert a row populated with only the first 3 columns (the others are null), is a row chaining occurred?
I tried to insert a row described above and no row chaining occurred.
As I understand, a row chaining occurs in a table with 1000 columns only when the populated data increases
the block size OR when more than 255 columns are populated. Am I right?
Thanks
dyahavYesterday, I stated this on the forum "Tables with more than 255 columns will always have chained rows." My statement needs clarification. It was based on the following:
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28318/schema.htm#i4383
"Oracle Database can only store 255 columns in a row piece. Thus, if you insert a row into a table that has 1000 columns, then the database creates 4 row pieces, typically chained over multiple blocks."
And this paraphrase from "Practical Oracle 8i":
V$SYSSTAT will show increasing values for CONTINUED ROW FETCH as table rows are read for tables containing more than 255 columns.
Related information may also be found here:
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/server.920/a96524/c11schem.htm
"When a table has more than 255 columns, rows that have data after the 255th column are likely to be chained within the same block. This is called intra-block chaining. A chained row's pieces are chained together using the rowids of the pieces. With intra-block chaining, users receive all the data in the same block. If the row fits in the block, users do not see an effect in I/O performance, because no extra I/O operation is required to retrieve the rest of the row."
http://download.oracle.com/docs/html/B14340_01/data.htm
"For a table with several columns, the key question to consider is the (average) row length, not the number of columns. Having more than 255 columns in a table built with a smaller block size typically results in intrablock chaining.
Oracle stores multiple row pieces in the same block, but the overhead to maintain the column information is minimal as long as all row pieces fit in a single data block. If the rows don't fit in a single data block, you may consider using a larger database block size (or use multiple block sizes in the same database). "
Why not a test case?
Create a test table named T4 with 1000 columns.
With the table created, insert 1,000 rows into the table, populating the first 257 columns each with a random 3 byte string which should result in an average row length of about 771 bytes.
SPOOL C:\TESTME.TXT
SELECT
SN.NAME,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
INSERT INTO T4 (
COL1,
COL2,
COL3,
COL255,
COL256,
COL257)
SELECT
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3)
FROM
DUAL
CONNECT BY
LEVEL<=1000;
SELECT
SN.NAME,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
SET AUTOTRACE TRACEONLY STATISTICS
SELECT
FROM
T4;
SET AUTOTRACE OFF
SELECT
SN.NAME,
SN.STATISTIC#,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
SPOOL OFFWhat are the results of the above?
Before the insert:
NAME                      VALUE
table fetch continue        166
After the insert:
NAME                      VALUE
table fetch continue        166
After the select:
NAME                 STATISTIC#      VALUE
table fetch continue        252        332 Another test, this time with an average row length of about 12 bytes:
DELETE FROM T4;
COMMIT;
SPOOL C:\TESTME2.TXT
SELECT
SN.NAME,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
INSERT INTO T4 (
COL1,
COL256,
COL257,
COL999)
SELECT
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3)
FROM
DUAL
CONNECT BY
LEVEL<=100000;
SELECT
SN.NAME,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
SET AUTOTRACE TRACEONLY STATISTICS
SELECT
FROM
T4;
SET AUTOTRACE OFF
SELECT
SN.NAME,
SN.STATISTIC#,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
SPOOL OFFWith 100,000 rows each containing about 12 bytes, what should the 'table fetch continued row' statistic show?
Before the insert:
NAME                      VALUE
table fetch continue        332
After the insert:
NAME                      VALUE
table fetch continue        332
After the select:
NAME                 STATISTIC#      VALUE
table fetch continue        252      33695The final test only inserts data into the first 4 columns:
DELETE FROM T4;
COMMIT;
SPOOL C:\TESTME3.TXT
SELECT
SN.NAME,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
INSERT INTO T4 (
COL1,
COL2,
COL3,
COL4)
SELECT
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3),
DBMS_RANDOM.STRING('A',3)
FROM
DUAL
CONNECT BY
LEVEL<=100000;
SELECT
SN.NAME,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
SET AUTOTRACE TRACEONLY STATISTICS
SELECT
FROM
T4;
SET AUTOTRACE OFF
SELECT
SN.NAME,
SN.STATISTIC#,
MS.VALUE
FROM
V$MYSTAT MS,
V$STATNAME SN
WHERE
SN.NAME = 'table fetch continued row'
AND SN.STATISTIC#=MS.STATISTIC#;
SPOOL OFFWhat should the 'table fetch continued row' show?
Before the insert:
NAME                      VALUE
table fetch continue      33695
After the insert:
NAME                      VALUE
table fetch continue      33695
After the select:
NAME                 STATISTIC#      VALUE
table fetch continue        252      33695 My statement "Tables with more than 255 columns will always have chained rows." needs to be clarified:
"Tables with more than 255 columns will always have chained rows +(row pieces)+ if a column beyond column 255 is used, but the 'table fetch continued row' statistic +may+ only increase in value if the remaining row pieces are found in a different block."
Charles Hooper
IT Manager/Oracle DBA
K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.
Edited by: Charles Hooper on Aug 5, 2009 9:52 AM
Paraphrase misspelled the view name "V$SYSSTAT", corrected a couple minor typos, and changed "will" to "may" in the closing paragraph as this appears to be the behavior based on the test case.

Compressed tables with more than 255 columns

hi,
Would anyone have a sql to find out compressed tables with more than 255 columns.
Thank you
Jonu

SELECT table_name,
       Count(column_name)
FROM   user_tab_columns utc
WHERE utc.table_name IN (SELECT table_name
                          FROM   user_tables
                          WHERE compression = 'ENABLED')
HAVING Count(column_name) > 255
GROUP BY table_name

Can I create a table with more than 40 columns ?

Hello,
I need to organize my work with a table and need about 66 columns. I am not very good with Numbers but I know a little bit of Pages. I cannot find a way to create a table with more than 40 columns... Is it hopeless ? (Pages '08 v. 3.0.3)
Thank you all

It's never too late to try to teach users that the Search feature is not only for helpers.
The number of columns allowed in Numbers is not a relevant value when the question is about Pages '08 tables.
I tried to copy a 256 columns Numbers table into a Pages '09 document.
I didn't got a table but values separated by TABs.
I tried to convert this text range in a table and got this clear message :
If I remember well, in Pages '08, the limit is 40 columns.
It seems that you are a specialist of inaccurate responses, but I'm not a moderator so I'm not allowed to urtge you to double check what you wrote before posting.
Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) vendredi 29 avril 2011 14:57:58
Please :
Search for questions similar to your own before submitting them to the community

Creating form base on a table with more than two columns key

Hi all,
I'trying to develop an application with HTMLDB and I'm facing a problem. I have a table with a primary key of 3 columns and I'm not able to load the data into the html db form.The web flow (generated with the wizard) is a browse page with a link to edit page. In the edit page I deleted the standard process and added a custom one.
This process is PL/SQL anon block and fires onload after header.
The code is the following:
Select ENABLED,PARAMETERS,CHECK_LEVEL into :P16_ENABLED,:P16_PARAMETERS,:P16_CHECK_LEVEL FROM CHECK_SETS_CHECKS
WHERE CHECK_ID=:P16_CHECK_ID AND CHECK_SET_ID=:P16_CHECK_SET_ID AND
EXECUTION_ORDER=:P16_EXECUTION_ORDER
i.e. I select the other values using the table primary key.
When the form renders I don't see the 3 value selected from the query but only the pk ones. I know that the the query is executed because if I change a column name to a non existing one I get an error.
What I'm missing?
Thanks,
Giovanni

Giovanni,
Check the source type of the items. They should no longer be source type 'Database Column'.
Scott

How to create Dynamic Table with more than one column?

Hi,
I'm trying to learn Dreamweaver. I'm trying to display 2 units from my database in the same row then I would like go to next row.
By default DW shows single record in each row. Is it possible to display more than one?
Thank you

Of course. You will not name the divs differently, they will all be <div class="RowContainer"> (in the example below) and the reason they will look like
1 2
3 4
5 6
is because they will "stack themselves up". That is, the first will float to the top left, the next will float up next to it. The third will not fit on the top line floating next to two, so it will start a new row. Four will float up next to it, and five will start the new row.
Think of the string of divs (don't put wordspaces between them...) as a continuous ribbon or chain of divs. That is a slightly poor analogy, since the second and third won't be next to each other, as a chain or a ribbon might be. But you should be able to have as many divs as you have records... you define the div in the CSS and in your page markup really only show one div.
Here's a modified example from one of my files:
<div spry:region="ds1" class="...">
<div spry:repeat="ds1" class="RowContainer"> 
    {category} {title} {medium}<br>
     {price} {sold} {date}<br>
     {sold_to_purchase_price}
</div>
</div>
Beth

Unable To Select From SQL Server table with more than 42 columns

I have set up a link between a Microsoft SQL Server 2003 database and an Oracle 9i database using Heterogeneous Services (HSODBC). It's working well with most of the schema I'm selecting from except for 3 tables. I don't know why. The common denominator between all the tables is that they all have at least 42 columns each, two have 42 columns, one has 56, and the other one, 66. Two of the tables are empty, one has almost 100k records, one has has 170k records. So I don't think the size of the table matters.
Is there a limitation on the number of table columns you can select from through a dblink? Even the following statement errors out:
select 1
from "Table_With_42_Cols"@sqlserver_db
The error message I get is:
ORA-28500: connection from ORACLE to a non-Oracle system returned this message [Generic Connectivity Using ODBC]
ORA-02063: preceding 2 lines from sqlserver_db
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Not a very efficient and space friendly design to do name-value pairs like that.
Other methods to consider is splitting those 1500 parameters up into groupings of similar parameters, and then have a table per group.
Another option would be to use "vertical table partitioning" (as oppose to the more standard horizontal partitionining provided by the Oracle partition option) - this can be achieved (kind of) in Oracle using clusters.
Sooner or later this name-value design is going to bite you hard. It has 1500 rows where there should be only 1 row. It is not scalable.. and as you're discovering, it is unnatural to use. I would rather change that table and design sooner than later.

Creating hash table with more than two columns

Hello,
I tried to search around and can't quite find what I'm trying to do. I know I can make a hash table like:
$Hash = @{"Texas" = "Hot";"Alaska" = "Cold"}
But I would like to add a third column, so for the sake of an example have the third one say travel by air and the other travel by car. What's the syntax so I can add more columns than two? Also, how can I change the column header names?

I think you want something more like this:
New-Object PSObject -property @{
State="Texas"
Temp="Hot"
Travel="Air"
If I set $hash to equal that:
$hash = New-Object PSObject -property @{State="Texas";Temp="Hot";Travel="Air"}
I get this:
Travel Temp State
Air Hot
Texas
If I have a master variable
$hashes = @()
I can set $hash to the new-object of relevant values each pass of a loop:
$hash = New-Object PSObject -property @{State="Alaska";Temp="Cold";Travel="Car"}
And add that to $hashes each time:
$hashes += $hash
and add to the collection:
Travel Temp State
Air Hot
Texas
Car Cold Alaska
As mjolinor suggested, you really need to understand what you want to do. I suspect you are just unfamiliar with the terms, because what you're describing is an array of values, which is better suited to a PSObject rather than to a hash table.
The method for populating a PSObject I describe above is just one variation of one particular method for doing so, there are others that may be more or less suitable for what you want to do.
I hope this post has helped!
Thank you, this is what I was looking for. I've never had to use powershell for this type of task before and did know of this process, and only could find hash tables when I poked around. This will make life much easier!

ALV grid display with more than 1000 columns

Hi Friends,
I have to prepare a report output which have 1015 columns.
User will give 100 weeks of data to retrieve. I have to display the output in day wise.
100*7 + 315 = 1015 columns.
I am using ALV grid display for this in 4.6C.
My Question is, whether I have to declare the output table type with 1015 fields.?
Is there any other way to do this, without declaring 1015 cloumns.
Please guide me to solve this.
Regards,
Viji.

I'm thinking when your End-user will press Ctrl + P feeding A4 size to printer
Thomas:
Maybe the functional consultant is pulling your leg?
May be OP is pulling our legs or something further?
Cheers

How to create a table with more tan 20 columns

I created a A4 landscape document to make a calendar for the next year.
To add the date information I need to insert a table with 32 columns (name of month + 31 days). It should be possible to create a table with a over all width of 29.7 cm (consisting of 1 column of 4.9 cm and 31 columns with 0.8 cm)?
Remark: Yet reduced all indention's (? German: Einzug) and other spacers and the size of used font of the table.

Hello Till,
unfortunatly Pages connot create a table with more than 20 columns. This is no question of size or place.
But you can create two tables, set the most right border of the fist table to "no line" and align the second table (with the other 12 columns) at the right side of the first table. Now you have "one" table with 32 columns.
I have done this with my driving book (Fahrtenbuch, um es korrekt zu schreiben and it works fine.
Frank.

Spatial index creation for table with more than one geometry columns?

I have table with more than one geometry columns.
I'v added in user_sdo_geom_metadata table record for every column in the table.
When I try to create spatial indexes over geometry columns in the table - i get error message:
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-29855: error occurred in the execution of ODCIINDEXCREATE routine
ORA-13203: failed to read USER_SDO_GEOM_METADATA table
ORA-13203: failed to read USER_SDO_GEOM_METADATA table
ORA-06512: at "MDSYS.SDO_INDEX_METHOD", line 8
ORA-06512: at line 1
What is the the solution?

I'v got errors in my user_sdo_geom_metadata.
The problem does not exists!

General Scenario- Adding columns into a table with more than 100 million rows

I was asked/given a scenario, what issues do you encounter when you try to add new columns to a table with more than 200 million rows? How do you overcome those?
Thanks in advance.
svk

For such a large table, it is better to add the new column to the end of the table to avoid any performance impact, as RSingh suggested.
Also avoid to use any default on the newly created statement, or SQL Server will have to fill up 200 million fields with this default value. If you need one, add an empty column and update the column by using small batches (otherwise you lock up the whole
table). Add the default after all the rows have a value for the new column.

Trouble with the SQL smt to :list tables having more than 1000 rows

Please I trying to list only tables having more than 1000 rows, but the sql stmt below doesn't work, can someone gives me a tips
select table_name from user_tables where table_name in ( select table_name from user_tables where rownum > 1000 ) : The result is no rows!
But I know that I have at lest 50 tables having more than 1000 rows
Thanks a lot for the help

If your tables are reasonably analyzed, then you can simply query:
SELECT table_name,
num_rows
FROM user_tables
WHERE num_rows >= 1000This will give you quite a reasonable estimate.
Otherwise you have to go for dynamic sql or use the data dictionary to help you generate suitable scripts ....

ORA-24335 - cannot support more than 1000 columns - How to solve this?

Hi,
I got error message 'ORA-24335 - cannot support more than 1000 columns ' when i try to insert x no of rows for a table with following code:
INSERT ALL
INTO tableA Values ('A', 'B', 'C', 1, 2, 3)
INTO tableA Values ('D', 'E', 'F', 4, 5, 6)
INTO tableA Values ('G', 'H', 'I', 7, 8, 9)
SELECT *
FROM DUAL
How to solve above?
What does it really mean? It's not as easy as if my table has 10 columns than I can't insert more than 100 rows (1000 columns divided with 10 columns = maximun 100 rows to insert), or?
Is there a better/more appropriate way to do insert many rows?
Should I do my inserts with an OracleTransaction (My application is developed with C# and asp.net), as ~follows
BEGIN
INSERT INTO tableA Values ('A', 'B', 'C', 1, 2, 3)
INSERT INTO tableA Values ('D', 'E', 'F', 4, 5, 6)
INSERT INTO tableA Values ('G', 'H', 'I', 7, 8, 9)
COMMIT
END
Thx in advance!
Edited by: user8819407 on 2010-mar-07 15:40

Hi,
So how did you solve the problem? Can you please give an example?
I have the same problem inserting over 1000 values into my Oracle DB. The table only has 51 columns but to speed up the insert command, I use bulk inserts via insert all command. I need to insert 100 rows at a time for a total of 5100 values.
Example:
SQLCmd = INSERT ALL INTO MYTABLE (VAL_ID,VAL_NAME,VAL_NUM,VAL_TIME,VAL_CMM,VAL_TIME1,VAL_TRIP,VAL_REMAINING,VAL_AGE,VAL_COUNT,VAL_RSTS,VAL_VOLT,VAL_RF,VAL_DC,VAL_HOPS,VAL_STATUS,VAL_ELAPSED,MODIFY_TIME) VALUES (?,?,?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,SYSTIMESTAMP)
INTO MYTABLE (VAL_ID,VAL_NAME,VAL_NUM,VAL_TIME,VAL_CMM,VAL_TIME1,VAL_TRIP,VAL_REMAINING,VAL_AGE,VAL_COUNT,VAL_RSTS,VAL_VOLT,VAL_RF,VAL_DC,VAL_HOPS,VAL_STATUS,VAL_ELAPSED,MODIFY_TIME) VALUES (?,?,?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,SYSTIMESTAMP)
INTO MYTABLE (VAL_ID,VAL_NAME,VAL_NUM,VAL_TIME,VAL_CMM,VAL_TIME1,VAL_TRIP,VAL_REMAINING,VAL_AGE,VAL_COUNT,VAL_RSTS,VAL_VOLT,VAL_RF,VAL_DC,VAL_HOPS,VAL_STATUS,VAL_ELAPSED,MODIFY_TIME) VALUES (?,?,?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,SYSTIMESTAMP)
INTO MYTABLE (VAL_ID,VAL_NAME,VAL_NUM,VAL_TIME,VAL_CMM,VAL_TIME1,VAL_TRIP,VAL_REMAINING,VAL_AGE,VAL_COUNT,VAL_RSTS,VAL_VOLT,VAL_RF,VAL_DC,VAL_HOPS,VAL_STATUS,VAL_ELAPSED,MODIFY_TIME) VALUES (?,?,?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,TO_DATE(?,?),?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,SYSTIMESTAMP)
SELECT 1 FROM DUAL
SQLVals = 1 22C38299 80700334 04-19-2012 13:55:33 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss MCC93000 04/19/2012 13:55:42 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss 12 4 0.792191 23 1 0.00 -113.50 13.48 9 1 9
1 36PR7038 8070EDC2 04-19-2012 12:24:35 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss MCC60360 04/19/2012 12:24:41 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss 7 4 0.757501 3 2 13.88 -114.80 14.06 5 1 6
1 42C63512 8050166F 04-19-2012 16:02:50 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss MCC52420 04/19/2012 16:02:57 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss 10 4 0.778471 8 1 0.00 -122.30 13.05 8 1 7
1 33MR3076 80803E75 04-19-2012 13:13:16 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss MCC60330 04/19/2012 13:13:22 mm-dd-yyyy hh24:mi:ss 13 5 0.636721 28 3 0.00 -122.19 0.70 8 1 6
Then I call: &DBInsert($sqlCmd, @sqlVals);
This is the error I get: ORA-24335: cannot support more than 1000 columns.
I need to insert about 879,500 rows (51 cols per row). The values I read from a text file in sets of about 48,000 and put them into a hash. I tried inserting one row at a time, but it takes too long, about 28 hrs! Then, I tried the bulk update with only 6 rows and the total time was about 25 minutes. Which is acceptable to us.
Thanks!

Table with more than 1000 columns

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for