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:

Possible Bug in 2.0b15.acgi (1997) WebCat2b15MacPlugin - [protect] (1997) Cancel Subscription (1996) Variables in a Prefernce File (2005) [WriteFile] problems (1997) stop shoiwif working whilst generating pages (2005) Slightly OT: [sendmail] help (2003) PCS Frames (1997) what's the voodoo for Search for value or blank? (2004) [no_cache]?! (2000) WebCat2 Append problem (B14Macacgi) (1997) Re:E-mailer application times out (1998) [WriteFile] problems (1997) Showing Results Alphabetically in Columns (top to bottom) (2002) RE: Sorting error (1997) Cart doesn't interpret tag! (1997) WCS Newbie question (1997) WebDNA Solutions ... sorry! (1997) Multi-processor Mac info ... (1997)