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:
WebCat2b13 Mac plugin - [sendmail] and checkboxes (1997)
Which GUI HTML editors work with WC ? (1997)
Emailer pref's won't save (2005)
showif field is number (1997)
japanese characters (1997)
synching databases on multiple servers (1997)
Multiple Stores and WebCatalog Prefs (1997)
WebCat2b13 Command Reference Doc error (1997)
WebCat2b12--[searchstring] bug (1997)
Re[2]: 2nd WebCatalog2 Feature Request (1996)
2nd WebCatalog2 Feature Request (1996)
Associative lookup style? + bit more (1997)
Limit to Field Length in DB (1998)
[WebDNA] authorize.net / payeezy FirstData (2019)
Setting user/password with a form. (2000)
PCS Frames (1997)
Trouble with formula.db + more explanation (1997)
still having search problem, please help :) (2004)
Giving out error pages (1997)
AppleScript does not work properly ... (2000)