Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables

gt; > -Bill > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users- > > > boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Clemens Ladisch > > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:46 AM > > > To: sqlite-users@sqlite

Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables

I'm assuming you're measuring something from each unit (I'm guessing device?) out on the field? Taking a quick glance at your table, I could see three tables being created to normalize things out. You have particular units at a particular location. That can be one table. Another table would be

Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables

> concerned with organizational clarity and correctness than efficiency >From my personal experience, Sqlite is so bloody fast I simply side table efficiency until it needs to be looked at. I can load 1.5 million name address records (500 bytes each), a second table of 3 million records (same

Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables

> > The question I have is, should I lump everything together in one > table just like the .csv file or should I create several smaller tables > that group similar parameters? I'm not sure what would normally be > done. I think the database is normalized properly in either case. > > For SQLite,

Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables

nt: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:46 AM > > To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org > > Subject: Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables > > > > Drago, William @ MWG - NARDAEAST wrote: > > > An automatic test system that I designed generates 25 data elements >

Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables

qlite.org] On Behalf Of Clemens Ladisch > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:46 AM > To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org > Subject: Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables > > Drago, William @ MWG - NARDAEAST wrote: > > An automatic test system that I designed generates

Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables

sers@sqlite.org > Subject: Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables > > There is no point to grouping similar fields in different tables, > though I would advise grouping them together in the main table as a > simple case for clarity, but it has no other benefit. As lon

Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables

On 9 Oct 2014, at 3:25pm, Drago, William @ MWG - NARDAEAST wrote: > The question I have is, should I lump everything together in one table just > like the .csv file or should I create several smaller tables that group > similar parameters? I'm not sure what would

Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables

Drago, William @ MWG - NARDAEAST wrote: > An automatic test system that I designed generates 25 data elements > for each unit tested. [...] > should I lump everything together in one table just like the .csv file > or should I create several smaller tables that group similar parameters? > I'm not

Re: [sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables

There is no point to grouping similar fields in different tables, though I would advise grouping them together in the main table as a simple case for clarity, but it has no other benefit. As long as the data is in 1NF, one table is fine. The main reason (and I think only motivation) to have data

[sqlite] Single large table vs. several smaller tables

All, An automatic test system that I designed generates 25 data elements for each unit tested. We test about 50 units/day. This data is currently being stored in a csv file. I'd like to move this over to an SQLite database. The question I have is, should I lump everything together in one table