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:
Great product and great job ! (1997)
WebCatalog 4.0.2b5 available (2000)
Re:Hideif / Showif (1998)
Lots of bounce errors (2007)
Don't do this! (2003)
Max Record length restated as maybe bug (1997)
[WebDNA] WebDNA vs. PHP code examples (2008)
Alternating colors (1997)
Security Issues and WebCommerce Solution (1997)
ooops...WebCatalog [FoundItems] Problem - LONG - (1997)
email problem (2005)
Generating Options for a Form. (1997)
SMSI FTP - calander system (2002)
Multiple Items (2004)
value in forms (2000)
Re:Emailer Set Up (1997)
pull downs (1997)
Encrypted links ... (2000)
different show next (1997)
Classified Ads 4 Sale (1998)