Oh, and response time should be 'faster', since you can locate the different
tables on separate storage devices, allowing for concurrent drive access to the
different parts of the item.
Steve Brazill wrote:
> You should split the data-fields into tables containing 'categories' of
> fields.
>
> * 'textual' (or informational) fields would be the main 'item' table
> * 'quantity' and other 'numeric' fields that are updated frequently (i.e.
> quantity sold, quantity on-hand) would be in the table that would be
> 'locked' most frequently.
> * fields that may be 'one to many' (i.e. 'alternate' item number(s) ) would
> be in their own tables
>
> All of the tables would be 'keyed' on the item number. Splitting them would
> reduce 'lock contention' (if someone has 'locked' the quantity table to update
> the 'on-hand' amounts, you won't be stopped from looking up item information
> from the 'textual' table), and reduce the amount of space used per item (the
> 'alternate item number' table would only grow for items that HAD alternate
> numbers).
>
> Jari Mäkelä wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > was wondering as am starting a database with just some 5000 different ID
> > entries and each entry having some 60 datafields, which would work
> > best/faster a single table of the data or divided into separate tables?
> >
> > Jari Mäkelä
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
