Speed and DB construction
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2005
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 61642
interpreted = N
texte = These days I make most of my databases all-in-one using a category field for the type of data it is, as opposed to separate databases for the different types of data. I.e., a db could have categories for links, images, news, etc. The first couple of records are used for sitewide preferences. I have site now that I'm offering as a service, and each customer gets their own folder and DB. The all-in-one system seems cleaner, but I'm wondering now what's the difference in speed of say 1 database with 1000 records vs. 3 databases with a combined total of 1000 records. Then multiply that scenario by (hopefully) dozens or even hundreds. The number of fields wouldn't be drastically different, and I don't think the searches would be any different except for specifying different databases. In other words, what's better:More, but smaller, databasesFewer, but bigger, databasesThanks.Terry-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list
.To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
|
- Speed and DB construction ( Terry Wilson 2005)
|
These days I make most of my databases all-in-one using a category field for the type of data it is, as opposed to separate databases for the different types of data. I.e., a db could have categories for links, images, news, etc. The first couple of records are used for sitewide preferences. I have site now that I'm offering as a service, and each customer gets their own folder and DB. The all-in-one system seems cleaner, but I'm wondering now what's the difference in speed of say 1 database with 1000 records vs. 3 databases with a combined total of 1000 records. Then multiply that scenario by (hopefully) dozens or even hundreds. The number of fields wouldn't be drastically different, and I don't think the searches would be any different except for specifying different databases. In other words, what's better:More, but smaller, databasesFewer, but bigger, databasesThanks.Terry-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Terry Wilson
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Emailer update for Mac? (1998)
Re[2]: Field Problem (2000)
[WebDNA] Alt Web Servers OS X (2011)
Security Levels... Possible? (2000)
still having shipCost.db Problem (1997)
Webcatalog error, Plug-in for Webstar (1996)
[time] math Q (2003)
Download URL & access on the fly ? (1997)
[WebDNA] Screen Resolution - detection & redirect (2012)
Rhapsody? (1997)
mass mailing (1998)
weird happenings (1997)
text conversions (1999)
Logging purchases (1997)
Migrating to NT (1997)
Multiple edits/replacementsd to db. Possible? (1997)
Encrypting the seed (2001)
TCP Connect (1999)
limitation found on group searching (1997)
RE: Displaying Location (1997)