|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Biswajit Nanda
New User
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 9
Location: India
|
|
|
|
| Using of 1 large table or using of small multiple tables? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
enrico-sorichetti
Superior Member
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 10873
Location: italy
|
|
|
|
the question as posed does not make any sense, and cannot be answered
better... from which point of view ?
optimization of any kind has many faces
when You optimize for something
You will gain there, but lose somewhere else
and so on and so on |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Biswajit Nanda
New User
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 9
Location: India
|
|
|
|
| does the use of smaller table make it less complex in search, does it save time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enrico-sorichetti
Superior Member
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 10873
Location: italy
|
|
|
|
access time depends on too many factors ,
the size of the table is just one of them!
first come the complexity of the query and proper indexing
and what kind of size would You be worried about
hundreds thousands millions of rows |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19244
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
| Quote: |
| does the use of smaller table make it less complex in search, does it save time? |
Probaly not. . . Actually, i would think that using 10 tables instead of one would make the process more complex. . .
SELECTing 20 rows from a properly indexed table of 1000 rows should not require much (if any) more resoures that selecting properly indexed 20 rows from a 100 million row table. Unfortunately, there are many, many poorly designed tables and poorly constructed queries that run quite nicely on a 1000 row test table, but when the full production volume is used they grind to a halt. . .
It sounds like you are asking for a generic, "works in every case" answer and there is not one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
