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:

LOOP and IF statements (1997) Country & Ship-to address & other fields ? (1997) Just Testing (1997) PROBLEM (1997) Protect (1997) Summarizing on two fields (1998) RED QUESTION MARKS AGAIN (1999) Append File help needed (2000) FW: WebDNA-Talk searchable? (1997) [WebDNA] Getting [groups] from users.db (2009) error -43 (1998) WebDNA won't start on Apache/iTools7 (2003) delete a file? (1998) Email (1998) WebDNA 5.x & iTools 7 & Apache 2 (2003) Reversing [ipaddress] normalization (1998) URGENT: NO BUG, woFIELDdata & FIELDword=ww (2002) Comments in db? (1997) [table] retained in memory (2006) Setting up the server (1997)