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, databases Fewer, but bigger, databases Thanks. 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:

    
  1. 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, databases Fewer, but bigger, databases Thanks. 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)