Re: [WebDNA] Which is more efficient? New db or add to existing db

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2013


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 110475
interpreted = N
texte = --Apple-Mail=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 it's really a question that cannot be answered fairly without more = information.... or without one of us reading books about db/data = "normalization", think. The idea in my mind right now is that if you are storing records in a = large and/or busy db who main/sole purpose is just to record the data in = your would-be new field, then that is a waste - look at all the other = fields with all those blanks... that is not efficient. Webdna may be so = fast on small/low sites/db/traffic that you won't notice anyway... but = maybe knifecenters.com has to watch resource consumption? -G On 2013-06-26, at 2:21 PM, Alex Agnew wrote: > We're working on a new project that will require one of two options: > 1) add a new field to one of our existing DBs (the db is one of our = larger ones, too) > 2) Make a new db that contains a primary key and the desired new field >=20 > Which would be the most efficient or is there any difference in terms = of performance? >=20 > --=20 > Alex Agnew > IT/Web Developer - KnifeCenter.com > alex@knifecenters.com > --------------------------------------------------------- This message = is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To = unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: = http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: = support@webdna.us --Apple-Mail=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 it's = really a question that cannot be answered fairly without more = information....  or without one of us reading books about db/data = "normalization", think.
The idea in my mind right now is that if you = are storing records in a large and/or busy db who main/sole purpose is = just to record the data in your would-be new field, then that is a waste = - look at all the other fields with all those blanks... that is not = efficient.  Webdna may be so fast on small/low sites/db/traffic = that you won't notice anyway... but maybe knifecenters.com has to watch = resource = consumption?

-G

On = 2013-06-26, at 2:21 PM, Alex Agnew wrote:

We're working on a new project that will require one of two = options:
1) add a new field to one of our existing DBs (the db is = one of our larger ones, too)
2) Make a new db that contains a = primary key and the desired new field

Which would be the most efficient or is there any = difference in terms of performance?

-- =
Alex Agnew
IT/Web Developer - KnifeCenter.com
--------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/l= ist/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us

= --Apple-Mail=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5D-- Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: [WebDNA] Which is more efficient? New db or add to existing db (John Butler 2013)
  2. [WebDNA] Which is more efficient? New db or add to existing db (Alex Agnew 2013)
--Apple-Mail=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 it's really a question that cannot be answered fairly without more = information.... or without one of us reading books about db/data = "normalization", think. The idea in my mind right now is that if you are storing records in a = large and/or busy db who main/sole purpose is just to record the data in = your would-be new field, then that is a waste - look at all the other = fields with all those blanks... that is not efficient. Webdna may be so = fast on small/low sites/db/traffic that you won't notice anyway... but = maybe knifecenters.com has to watch resource consumption? -G On 2013-06-26, at 2:21 PM, Alex Agnew wrote: > We're working on a new project that will require one of two options: > 1) add a new field to one of our existing DBs (the db is one of our = larger ones, too) > 2) Make a new db that contains a primary key and the desired new field >=20 > Which would be the most efficient or is there any difference in terms = of performance? >=20 > --=20 > Alex Agnew > IT/Web Developer - KnifeCenter.com > alex@knifecenters.com > --------------------------------------------------------- This message = is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To = unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: = http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: = support@webdna.us --Apple-Mail=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 it's = really a question that cannot be answered fairly without more = information....  or without one of us reading books about db/data = "normalization", think.
The idea in my mind right now is that if you = are storing records in a large and/or busy db who main/sole purpose is = just to record the data in your would-be new field, then that is a waste = - look at all the other fields with all those blanks... that is not = efficient.  Webdna may be so fast on small/low sites/db/traffic = that you won't notice anyway... but maybe knifecenters.com has to watch = resource = consumption?

-G

On = 2013-06-26, at 2:21 PM, Alex Agnew wrote:

We're working on a new project that will require one of two = options:
1) add a new field to one of our existing DBs (the db is = one of our larger ones, too)
2) Make a new db that contains a = primary key and the desired new field

Which would be the most efficient or is there any = difference in terms of performance?

-- =
Alex Agnew
IT/Web Developer - KnifeCenter.com
--------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/l= ist/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us

= --Apple-Mail=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5D-- John Butler

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:

WebCat2final1 crashes (1997) setting values (1998) [OT]Target Links (advanced??) (2001) Verifying both name and password (was: THANKS) (1997) WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - syntax to convert date (1997) Search problem (2002) PCS Emailer's role ? (1997) Authenticate (1997) Plugin or CGI or both (1997) To Err or Not Custom Error (1999) [platform] tag? (1998) Flash 4 Examples (2000) Review comparison by PC Magazine: Open for On-line Business (1997) Pithy questions on webcommerce & siteedit (1997) Add a field to the error log? (1997) [WebDNA] WebDNA on Linux (2009) Alpha List for Catagory (1998) Help w/Multi User Admins (1997) Help name our technology! I found it (1997) Formulas.db (2001)