List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Tim Johnson Date:June 15 2004 9:04pm
Subject:Re: Concatenating tables
View as plain text  
* Frank Bax <fbax@stripped> [040615 12:59]:
> At 03:14 PM 6/15/04, Tim Johnson wrote:
> >We are importing data from 3 CSV files.
<..> >the 3 tables into 1.
> >
> >Taken as a sum, we should have about 330 columns
> >and 5000+ rows.
  Hi Frank:
> Are you saying:
> each CSV contains about 110 columns for the same key values

> - or -
> each CSV contains 1700+ rows for the same 330 columns.
> - or -
> something else?
> In the first case, I would consider loading three tables, then using sql to 
> "join" the data by key values and dump it into a new table with all 330 
> columns.  Then delete the three temp tables.

> In the second case, I would concatenate the CSV files, then import them 
> into a table of 330 columns.
> What performance penalty are you expecting with either of these scenarios?  
  I didn't anticipate any penalty myself (for scenario 1), but was
  looking for a second opinion.

  I like your tip on using "join". I always like mysql to do the 
  "heavy lifting" (they're so much better programmers than I)


Tim Johnson <tim@stripped>
Can't connect mysql.sockCurtis Seyfried 214 Jun
  • Re: Can't connect mysql.sockMichael Stassen14 Jun
    • Re: Can't connect mysql.sockCurtis Seyfried 214 Jun
      • Re: Can't connect mysql.sockMichael Stassen15 Jun
        • Concatenating tablesTim Johnson15 Jun
          • Re: Concatenating tablesFrank Bax15 Jun
            • Re: Concatenating tablesTim Johnson15 Jun
Re: Concatenating tablesSGreen15 Jun
  • Re: Concatenating tablesTim Johnson15 Jun