Off head, I would recommend one DB for easier management and data access. However, if you have some confidential data and to mitigate risk, you may consider to create a new DB (not directly accessible by business users) and place data there, then, since they are related you would need replication or the like to "sync" data in two locations.
Don
>Any SQL server experts on the list?
>
>I'm curious what the best practice is in regards to the size of a DB.
>I have a two databases. While one set of data is outside the domain of the
>other set, they are related by a single table.
>Is it better to just have two seperate DBs? Simplest example would be this.
>
>TableA
>--------
>IDA
>IDB
>column1
>column2
>
>TableB
>---------
>IDB
>column1
>column2
>
>TableC
>---------
>IDC
>IDB
>column1
>column2
>
>TableA and TableB are joined on IDB and TableB and TableC are joined by IDB
>too. TableC and TableA don't have any things in common except tableB.
>The real life problem I'm working on is this. TableA is a table of client
>order information. TableB is table of all stocks. TableC is a table of
>historical price info for the stock for each day the markets are open.
>
>Seperate TableA into a seperate DB and put TableB and TableC in
>another? Or put them all in the same DB even though any application that
>will make any calls to tableA will never call tableC and any application
>that makes calls to tableC will never call tableA? *I want to keep tableB
>and tableC together because I need these queries to run faster.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
