List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Martijn Tonies Date:March 14 2006 11:32am
Subject:Re: Merge tables.
View as plain text  
Hello Paul,

I suggest you reply to the mailinglist :-) ...

> The developer insists that for scalability issues, this was the
> answer. It is likely, for example in my deployment, that these tables
> would see upwards of 10 million records or more.

Well, if there are problems with scalability, I guess you could
split it up in a few (not 1600) tables and have them avaialble
on different physical hard drives...

But -> why try to fix something that ain't broken (yet)?

Were you experiencing problems already? If the application
is fast WITHOUT merge tables, why bother?

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - development tool for MySQL, and more!
Upscene Productions
My thoughts:
Database development questions? Check the forum!

> >
> > > One of the databases I use just switched to using merge tables and now
> > > my queries are painfully slow. One table, initially had about 2.5
> > > million records and now with the change this information is spread
> > > across about 1600 tables. A simple query, say select count(*) has gone
> > > from .04 to about 30 seconds, sometimes even longer.
> >
> > Why on earth would you spread this information across 1600 (!!!)
> > tables? That's 1600 files to maintain instead of 1.

Merge tables.Paul Halliday14 Mar
  • Re: Merge tables.Martijn Tonies14 Mar
  • Re: Merge tables.Prasanna Raj14 Mar
  • Re: Merge tables.Martijn Tonies14 Mar
    • Re: Merge tables.Alec.Cawley14 Mar
    • Re: Merge tables.Paul Halliday14 Mar
      • Re: Merge tables.Alec.Cawley14 Mar
        • Re: Merge tables.nigel wood14 Mar
          • Re: Merge tables.Alec.Cawley14 Mar
          • Permissions block database creationDoug Pinkerton14 Mar
            • RE: Permissions block database creationMarciano [Intercol]14 Mar
            • Re: Permissions block database creationКосов Евгений14 Mar
  • Re: Merge tables.Martijn Tonies14 Mar