Hi there, I am using a mysql server at the moment which contains 2800 different databases.
phpmyadmin is really slow listing them, but that's not really a big deal. The thing is my view on this set of databases (every database contains about 20 tables) is it is really bad, because actually there's no real need of so many databases. In fact, every batch of 20 databases could be one database only, with more tables (but no the total number of tables by batch of 20 databases as it is now). Now my problem is to justify this is a wrong technique. So I have some questions about it which, I think, could help in determining whether the server would hugely benefit from such a change or not... Here are the questions. I hope all of you can answer them all... - how many databases can a MySQL server 3.23 (let's say on a good pentium 3, 512MB RAM) handle? or where to find such info...? - how wrong is creating 20 databases (total 400 tables) when you know you could create just one (total around 200 tables)? - what does MySQL handle better? Databases or tables? - could a slowdown problem causing me to have a "show databases" query answered in 42.50 seconds (more often being 0.02 sec) be bound to too many databases? Any answer is welcome as I am not quite used to MySQL benchmarking or improvement... Thanks, Yannick -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
