Curious if this is normal behaviour, or if my table is just not put together very well. I have a table consisting of approximately 4.5 million contacts, listed by company name/city/state/zip - The system this is running on is a PowerEdge 1400sc, 1ghz p3, 1 gig ram, 18gb scsi drive. These are the results of the following query:
SELECT COUNT(*) from usa_phone_list where state = 'NJ'; +----------+ | COUNT(*) | +----------+ | 157104 | +----------+ 1 row in set (29.62 sec) That seems like an awfully long time to me... When doing an explain on that query, the 'type' is coming back as index, and 'rows' is reporting 4886146.. Gr. Currently, I'm using 1 large table to store basically everything. I'm trying to figure out whether I should use some sort of normalization, and also I was thinking of basically creating 50 different tables, one for each state... Is there any downside to having that many tables, or is it unnecessary and should a table with millions of entries be able to run this query just as fast as one with a couple hundred thousand. Has anyone done anything like this before, and if so... What turned out to be the best route to take? I've never worked on a database this large before, and am not a professional DBA in the least. Just looking for some suggestions here on how to handle this. Thanks for all your help. James Taylor --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
