On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 20:02:20 -0500, Bernard Clement wrote:
Hello Bernard,
>Yes you can have it both way.
Good ! I was hoping someone would say that. :-)
>However, for the sake of simplicity I personally will go with one database and
>3 tables.
Okay, that has some advantages as the search page will be pretty much
identical for accessing each table. I might even be able to work out
how to search three different tables from the one search page.
>Also, if the 3 tables share the same structure, I will go with only one table.
Well, I WOULD go for that BUT my "key" column is the ISBN of a
books database and two tables may have the same ISBN but different
prices. :-(
>That means with a single connection you are able to search the information.
>This scheme also simplifies your insert/update/delete since you always work
>with only one database and probably one table.
Yes, that is certainly appealing.
>Finally, for sure you can have concurrent connections to multiple tables in
>one database as well as concurrent connections to multiple tables in
>multiples databases. As an example some Internet Service Provider (ISP)
>provides MySQL as a service to some of their customers and each of these
>customers have their own database that contains their own tables.
>Hum! another reason to use only one database in your case!
Well, my hosting company allows three MySQL databases. I don't think
they mention tables so perhaps that is an unlimited number ? :-)
Thank you for your comments Bernard.
Regards, John.
--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/
