renwoshin Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 Hi -- I wonder what is more efficient and returns a quicker response for the server: One table with 3000 values, or 30 tables with 100 values each? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenway Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 Querying one table is definitely faster than querying 30 tables! By "values" do you mean columns? If so, you probably should be breaking up groups of related fields into different tables to keep with normal-form recommendations for RDBMS table design. Please clarify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renwoshin Posted December 27, 2005 Author Share Posted December 27, 2005 [!--quoteo(post=330652:date=Dec 27 2005, 07:08 AM:name=fenway)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(fenway @ Dec 27 2005, 07:08 AM) 330652[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--] Querying one table is definitely faster than querying 30 tables! By "values" do you mean columns? If so, you probably should be breaking up groups of related fields into different tables to keep with normal-form recommendations for RDBMS table design. Please clarify. Oh, by values i mean by rows. There will only be about 7 columns. Every table will have these same columns. So instead I should have a massive table as opposed to separate ones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenway Posted December 27, 2005 Share Posted December 27, 2005 First, 3000 rows isn't a lot. Second, since the "logical" option would be to group all of them into a single flag with a type flag, what's the basis for keeping them separate? That is, how does this help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.