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:
| |
- 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:
WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [include] doesn't allow creator (1997)
EIMS Problems (1997)
[WebDNA] [listallcontexts] ??? (2016)
headers (2004)
WebCat2b15MacPlugin - showing [math] (1997)
2.0 Info (1997)
Number date (2006)
SetHeader (1999)
[WebDNA] WebDNA Roll Call (2013)
no global [username] or [password] displayed ... (1997)
Re:quit command on NT (1997)
Tech question about web dna actions (1998)
[WebDNA] Is a '.webdna' suffix better? (2008)
NT considerations (1997)
RE: type 2 errors with ssl server (1997)
[WebDNA] "Technical Reference" link broken in admin (2013)
WebCat 4.02b5 Mac OSXS [sendmail] bug (2000)
Custom Error Pages - what I've done (1998)
Emailer Error: 158 (2003)
Erotic Sites (1997)