List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Przemys?aw Klein Date:May 24 2007 9:12am
Subject:Re: design choice - quite many tables
View as plain text  
Wm Mussatto wrote:
> Assuming you are using MYISAM table types, each table requires at least
> three files on the disk.  If they are in one database they will all be in
> one directory (how fast is your OS at finding the files in its directory
> structure?).
> Are they going to be opened at the same time (how many file handles can
> you have open at once?)?
> If separate databases, how do you intend to connect to them (single
> connection specifying database or multiple connections).
> My feeling is that you would not gain anything by having separate databases.
> Good luck.
Thanks Wiliam.

OS resources are sufficient. We connect through connection pool, so it 
also shouldn't be a problem. The main reason of separating data into 
several databases is easier management (in particular: backup and 
recovery) and easier developer usability. I can hardly imagine to manage 
database with lets say 500 tables. I don't know if there is a way to 
'catalogue'/organize tables within one database (namespaces/schema?).
The second argument is that data from past years isn't modified often 
and we can apply different backup policies.


_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
Przemek Klein (p.klein@stripped)

design choice - quite many tablesPrzemysław Klein22 May
  • Re: design choice - quite many tablesBrent Baisley22 May
  • Re: design choice - quite many tablesMartijn Tonies22 May
    • Re: design choice - quite many tablesPrzemysław Klein23 May
      • Re: design choice - quite many tablesWm Mussatto23 May
        • Re: design choice - quite many tablesPrzemys?aw Klein24 May
          • Re: design choice - quite many tablesWm Mussatto24 May