Which is better
Dear all, Just want to know which join is better for querying data faster. I have 2 tables A ( 70 GB ) B ( 7 MB ) A has 10 columns B has 3 columns.Indexes exist on both tables's ids. select p.* from table A p, B q where p.id=q.id or select p.* from table B q , A p where q.id=p.id Thanks -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
RE: Which is better
I hope the former better. Test with query plan output, though Best Rgs, Shafi AHMED -Original Message- From: Adarsh Sharma [mailto:adarsh.sha...@orkash.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 12:12 PM To: mysql@lists.mysql.com Subject: Which is better Dear all, Just want to know which join is better for querying data faster. I have 2 tables A ( 70 GB ) B ( 7 MB ) A has 10 columns B has 3 columns.Indexes exist on both tables's ids. select p.* from table A p, B q where p.id=q.id or select p.* from table B q , A p where q.id=p.id Thanks -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=shafi.ah...@sifycorp.com Get your world in your inbox! Mail, widgets, documents, spreadsheets, organizer and much more with your Sifymail WIYI id! Log on to http://www.sify.com ** DISCLAIMER ** Information contained and transmitted by this E-MAIL is proprietary to Sify Technologies Limited and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If this is a forwarded message, the content of this E-MAIL may not have been sent with the authority of the Company. If you are not the intended recipient, an agent of the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering the information to the named recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution, transmission, printing, copying or dissemination of this information in any way or in any manner is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete this mail notify us immediately at ad...@sifycorp.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Re: Which is better
is optimizer depend on size of table? not sure On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Shafi AHMED shafi.ah...@sifycorp.comwrote: I hope the former better. Test with query plan output, though Best Rgs, Shafi AHMED -Original Message- From: Adarsh Sharma [mailto:adarsh.sha...@orkash.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 12:12 PM To: mysql@lists.mysql.com Subject: Which is better Dear all, Just want to know which join is better for querying data faster. I have 2 tables A ( 70 GB ) B ( 7 MB ) A has 10 columns B has 3 columns.Indexes exist on both tables's ids. select p.* from table A p, B q where p.id=q.id or select p.* from table B q , A p where q.id=p.id Thanks -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=shafi.ah...@sifycorp.com Get your world in your inbox! Mail, widgets, documents, spreadsheets, organizer and much more with your Sifymail WIYI id! Log on to http://www.sify.com ** DISCLAIMER ** Information contained and transmitted by this E-MAIL is proprietary to Sify Technologies Limited and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If this is a forwarded message, the content of this E-MAIL may not have been sent with the authority of the Company. If you are not the intended recipient, an agent of the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering the information to the named recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution, transmission, printing, copying or dissemination of this information in any way or in any manner is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete this mail notify us immediately at ad...@sifycorp.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=aim.prab...@gmail.com -- Best Regards, Prabhat Kumar MySQL DBA My Blog: http://adminlinux.blogspot.com My LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/profileprabhat
Re: Which is better
On 8/2/2011 02:41, Adarsh Sharma wrote: Dear all, Just want to know which join is better for querying data faster. I have 2 tables A ( 70 GB ) B ( 7 MB ) A has 10 columns B has 3 columns.Indexes exist on both tables's ids. select p.* from table A p, B q where p.id=q.id or select p.* from table B q , A p where q.id=p.id Thanks There is no difference in performance. The optimizer will change the sequence it uses to read the tables according to its own rules. If you had used STRAIGHT JOIN to force a particular execution path, the it would normally be faster to read the smaller table first. -- Shawn Green MySQL Principal Technical Support Engineer Oracle USA, Inc. - Hardware and Software, Engineered to Work Together. Office: Blountville, TN -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
RE: Which is better
Hard to tell. It depends on the cardinality of tables' id (I assume the IDs are not unique in each of the tables). David. -Original Message- From: Shawn Green (MySQL) [mailto:shawn.l.gr...@oracle.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 2:47 PM To: Adarsh Sharma Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com Subject: Re: Which is better On 8/2/2011 02:41, Adarsh Sharma wrote: Dear all, Just want to know which join is better for querying data faster. I have 2 tables A ( 70 GB ) B ( 7 MB ) A has 10 columns B has 3 columns.Indexes exist on both tables's ids. select p.* from table A p, B q where p.id=q.id or select p.* from table B q , A p where q.id=p.id Thanks There is no difference in performance. The optimizer will change the sequence it uses to read the tables according to its own rules. If you had used STRAIGHT JOIN to force a particular execution path, the it would normally be faster to read the smaller table first. -- Shawn Green MySQL Principal Technical Support Engineer Oracle USA, Inc. - Hardware and Software, Engineered to Work Together. Office: Blountville, TN -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=dle...@us.univision.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
which is better long rows in table or two short row tables
Dear Friends, I was to create a site with quite some heavy mySQL database. I wanted to know which is better longer rows in a table or two short rows tables. When compared in terms of speed etc. Pl. help me , with this question and any other tip you may find can be useful to me. Thanks, Abhishek jain
Re: which is better long rows in table or two short row tables
Not sure what your question is, but remember you can use indexes to speed up access to rows. Thus usually the less fields you need to seach in the better, avoid OR searches across fields. - Original Message - From: abhishek jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: mysql@lists.mysql.com Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:54 AM Subject: which is better long rows in table or two short row tables Dear Friends, I was to create a site with quite some heavy mySQL database. I wanted to know which is better longer rows in a table or two short rows tables. When compared in terms of speed etc. Pl. help me , with this question and any other tip you may find can be useful to me. Thanks, Abhishek jain -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which is better long rows in table or two short row tables
At 08:54 AM 7/13/2006, abhishek jain wrote: Dear Friends, I was to create a site with quite some heavy mySQL database. I wanted to know which is better longer rows in a table or two short rows tables. When compared in terms of speed etc. Pl. help me , with this question and any other tip you may find can be useful to me. Thanks, Abhishek jain Properly denormalized data with appropriate use of indexes. Google for relational data denormalise. Without knowing your data, whether the application is heavy on INSERTs and UPDATEs, or if it is mostly SELECTs, it is impossible to answer your question. Regards - Miles Thompson -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/387 - Release Date: 7/12/2006 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Database design, which is better
I have an question about the design of a database. What is the best way to design tables. Is it better to create many small tables, or create fewer big tables. Which of those two options will get the best performance? TIA, Alex Croes -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Database design, which is better
Alex croes said: I have an question about the design of a database. What is the best way to design tables. Is it better to create many small tables, or create fewer big tables. Which of those two options will get the best performance? Don't worry about performance. If performance is really that critical, 4 sentences is not enough to explain the problem. Besides, performance might be different with the next release anyway. Use whichever model represents your data best, because if you normalize your data, you usually don't have that much choice anyway. Jochem -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Database design, which is better
I have an question about the design of a database. What is the best way to design tables. Is it better to create many small tables, or create fewer big tables. Which of those two options will get the best performance? If you are asking whether to store the data all in one big table or a bunch of smaller identical tables it would be a tradeoff of speed vs. complexity. Normalization can go a long wat to helping. Check out: http://www.vbmysql.com/articles/normalize.html Regards, Mike Hillyer www.vbmysql.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which is better: big SQL statement or bigger db?
I need to have a user input a city and have MySQL pull up any records with that city OR nearby cities (within 10 mi). Which of the following would be the most efficient way to do this: Case A: When a user enters a city, an array of nearby cities is created so that an SQL statement like the following is generated: SELECT * FROM bc_posts WHERE post_citysoundex = 'A265' OR post_citysoundex = 'A415' OR post_citysoundex = 'A453' OR post_citysoundex = 'A430' OR post_citysoundex = 'A624' OR post_citysoundex = 'A350' OR . . . This statement would probably be much larger (upto 150 lines) and would query one table without additional joins. Case B: Here, when a user enters a city, the soundex of it is created and then queries a table that contains every city in the db PLUS all surrounding cities (calculated and inserted with each new city insert). Obviously, here the table would get large while my actual SQL statement is pretty straightforward but would require a join. I'm not sure which of these is the more elegant approach or would scale up much easier. Any input from the DB gurus would be appreciated! Thanks! -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which is better: big SQL statement or bigger db?
Hi,
May the following sql statement is more efficient.
SELECT * FROM bc_posts WHERE
post_citysoundex IN('A265','A415',.)
Armand
motorpsychkill wrote:
I need to have a user input a city and have MySQL pull up any records with
that city OR nearby cities (within 10 mi). Which of the following would be
the most efficient way to do this:
Case A:
When a user enters a city, an array of nearby cities is created so that an
SQL statement like the following is generated:
SELECT * FROM bc_posts WHERE
post_citysoundex = 'A265' OR
post_citysoundex = 'A415' OR
post_citysoundex = 'A453' OR
post_citysoundex = 'A430' OR
post_citysoundex = 'A624' OR
post_citysoundex = 'A350' OR
.
.
.
This statement would probably be much larger (upto 150 lines) and would
query one table without additional joins.
Case B:
Here, when a user enters a city, the soundex of it is created and then
queries a table that contains every city in the db PLUS all surrounding
cities (calculated and inserted with each new city insert). Obviously, here
the table would get large while my actual SQL statement is pretty
straightforward but would require a join.
I'm not sure which of these is the more elegant approach or would scale up
much easier. Any input from the DB gurus would be appreciated! Thanks!
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which is better: big SQL statement or bigger db?
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] Case A: ... This statement would probably be much larger (upto 150 lines) and would query one table without additional joins. Case B: Here, when a user enters a city, the soundex of it is created and then queries a table that contains every city in the db PLUS all surrounding cities (calculated and inserted with each new city insert). Obviously, here the table would get large while my actual SQL statement is pretty straightforward but would require a join. I'm not sure which of these is the more elegant approach or would scale up much easier. Any input from the DB gurus would be appreciated! Thanks! Most elegant is case B I would think. Let the database system do the work it is designed for. Scalability and performance in mysql I do not know. What about a test? -- Jon Haugsand, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norges-bank.no -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Newbie question: Which is better InnoDB or BDB?
Hello. On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 11:53:49AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I'm new to MySql. I plan to switch my Java/JDBC web application to use MySql. The application requires transactions so, as I understand it, I need the table types to be BDB or InnoDB. Can anyone offer comments on which file type is preferred? Is one more stable than another? InnoDB is more actively supported. Is there a significant difference in speed? Answers to such statements always depend on your kind of usage. I have looked in the manual. One difference I saw was page locking versus record locking. At this point, I'm not sure that difference is significant. That's the point. As long as you are not sure about your needs, there is no reason to bother. Just start with the table type which looks nicer to you at first glance. If you should learn that it doesn't fit your needs, the other table types are only one ALTER TABLE command away. Regards, Benjamin. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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
Newbie question: Which is better InnoDB or BDB?
Hello, I'm new to MySql. I plan to switch my Java/JDBC web application to use MySql. The application requires transactions so, as I understand it, I need the table types to be BDB or InnoDB. Can anyone offer comments on which file type is preferred? Is one more stable than another? Is there a significant difference in speed? I have looked in the manual. One difference I saw was page locking versus record locking. At this point, I'm not sure that difference is significant. Thanks for any comments. Rick - 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
Re: ACCESS DB, and MySQL which one better to handle database driv en webpage
Just to balance out the conversation, a couple years ago we had developed an e-commerce site which was to be prototyped in Access, then moved to SQL Server for production. The client decided that they didn't want to pay for the move to SQL Server, so we launched with Access as the backend. The database had tables containing from several hundred records, to over 100,000 records. The site grew in popularity and regularly recieved 10s of thousands of page views per day, each page having up to 10 or 15 database queries. Before moving to MS SQL Server a year later, we never had a single problem with Access. Not one. Now, that's not *huge* traffic, and I wouldn't recommend trying it today, but it certainly suprised me. -- Jack Baty Fusionary Media -- Original Message -- From: Tyrone Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:43:51 -0700 Sounds like you could be a reference site for Microsoft!! Only 2 corruptions using Access multi-user. That's incredibly good. I've supported systems with only 3 concurrent users who suffered corruption on a nearly daily basis. - Original Message - From: John Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MySQL (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 10:16 AM Subject: Re: ACCESS DB, and MySQL which one better to handle database driv en webpage It only corrupted your database twice? On Friday 22 June 2001 09:50, Patrick Calkins wrote: MySQL can handle infinately more concurent connections to it, and handle a much bigger load than MDB can even dream of doing. A few years back I used to write database apps in visual basic and MDB. It was running on the network, with only about 5 people accessing it at one time. MDB had corrupted the files at least twice. - 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 - 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 - 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
ACCESS DB, and MySQL which one better to handle database driven webpage
Can anybody help with the question about which one is the best to handle database driven webpage, Since, we are running on ACCESS DB, and MS SQL for a long time, but, We just have our new Lynex server it is running MySQL, my question is: 1) What's the different between MDB and MySQL. I mean the string of code? 2) Is it worth to have this upgrade? Thanks for the time
RE: ACCESS DB, and MySQL which one better to handle database driven webpage
MySQL has is used by alot of major players and there are pre made setup for building database driven websites like PHP-Nuke. Unsure on the strings I use Win2K and Mysql PHP and PHP Nuke with Apache for my site and it's working great! My Linux Server has the same and also does excellent. Cheers Mike -Original Message- FROM: Colin TMC TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DATE: Fri 6/22/01 8:16 SUBJECT: ACCESS DB, and MySQL which one better to handle database driven webpage Can anybody help with the question about which one is the best to handle = database driven webpage, Since, we are running on ACCESS DB, and MS SQL = for a long time, but, We just have our new Lynex server it is running = MySQL, my question is: 1) What's the different between MDB and MySQL. I mean the string of = code? 2) Is it worth to have this upgrade? Thanks for the time - 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
RE: ACCESS DB, and MySQL which one better to handle database driven webpage
First off, I wouldn't really want to call Access a database, as its little more than just a file with 1/2 of a program trying to access it. And second, I would say that MS SQL is both over-priced, and way too bloated, buggy, slow, etc, etc. (but then again, everyone has their own opinion on this). As far as MySQL goes, it seems to be a very excellent database system. Its fast, lightweight, fairly bug-free (much, much, much better then the two above), the support is unmatched, easy to use (if you understand SQL, which you should for any database), etc, etc. One of the most popular combinations to drive a dynamic web site is Apache, MySQL, PHP, all running on either Linux or FreeBSD. Many, many, many more sites on the internet run in this combination meaning that if you ever get stuck somewhere you won't have a hard time finding any help on it. MySQL can handle infinately more concurent connections to it, and handle a much bigger load than MDB can even dream of doing. A few years back I used to write database apps in visual basic and MDB. It was running on the network, with only about 5 people accessing it at one time. MDB had corrupted the files at least twice. I was very sad :o) Anyway, I have since been writing all my database apps using the PHP language, on Apache web server and accessing the MySQL database. The results? Never ever ever have I had a corrupted database, very fast - can easily handle loads of 100+ users at one time without even missing a step. This is good news to me! And best of all, its 100% free (unless you would like to donate anything to the project, or opt for professional support from the makers of the db). I know all of this sounds much like just a personal opinion, so I'll have you check out this link for yourself: http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks.html Hope this helps! Patrick # -Original Message- # From: Colin TMC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] # Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 6:56 AM # To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] # Subject: ACCESS DB, and MySQL which one better to handle # database driven # webpage # # # Can anybody help with the question about which one is the # best to handle database driven webpage, Since, we are # running on ACCESS DB, and MS SQL for a long time, but, We # just have our new Lynex server it is running MySQL, my question is: # # 1) What's the different between MDB and MySQL. I mean the # string of code? # 2) Is it worth to have this upgrade? # # Thanks for the time # - 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
Re: ACCESS DB, and MySQL which one better to handle database driven webpage
On Friday 22 June 2001 09:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MySQL has is used by alot of major players and there are pre made setup for building database driven websites like PHP-Nuke. Unsure on the strings I use Win2K and Mysql PHP and PHP Nuke with Apache for my site and it's working great! My Linux Server has the same and also does excellent. Cheers Mike If you use ODBC strings with DSN names, chances are you won't have to change much of the code. Of course, this is slower than an Oprah Winfrey show, but it can be done. There are some great tools out there that will help you make the migration between MDB and MySQL. DBTools is one of my favorites. Either way, if you are using a web page server, get away from the Access databases! - 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
Re: ACCESS DB, and MySQL which one better to handle database driv en webpage
It only corrupted your database twice? On Friday 22 June 2001 09:50, Patrick Calkins wrote: MySQL can handle infinately more concurent connections to it, and handle a much bigger load than MDB can even dream of doing. A few years back I used to write database apps in visual basic and MDB. It was running on the network, with only about 5 people accessing it at one time. MDB had corrupted the files at least twice. - 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
Re: ACCESS DB, and MySQL which one better to handle database driv en webpage
Sounds like you could be a reference site for Microsoft!! Only 2 corruptions using Access multi-user. That's incredibly good. I've supported systems with only 3 concurrent users who suffered corruption on a nearly daily basis. - Original Message - From: John Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MySQL (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 10:16 AM Subject: Re: ACCESS DB, and MySQL which one better to handle database driv en webpage It only corrupted your database twice? On Friday 22 June 2001 09:50, Patrick Calkins wrote: MySQL can handle infinately more concurent connections to it, and handle a much bigger load than MDB can even dream of doing. A few years back I used to write database apps in visual basic and MDB. It was running on the network, with only about 5 people accessing it at one time. MDB had corrupted the files at least twice. - 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 - 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
My sql queries...Which is better??
Hi, I am using my sql CAPI.I am able to access the database well but there is one performance issue that came into my mind. Is it better to have a single query on multiple tables using joins? (OR) Multiple queries without joins on each table,in a sequential order . If I use joins also,there won't be more than 3 tables. I got the issue especially keeping in view of the factor that I am using C API and I can achieve the effect of having joins through C/C++ language. Regards, Ravi Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie - 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
Table Design -- which is better?
I have a general design question. Is it better to design one table with 45 columns or to split it into 3 tables with 15 columns each. There would be about 5000 rows in the table and it would be used more for reading rather than writing. I'm new to this, is there anything I'm missing? Thanks, Nino - 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
Re: Table Design -- which is better?
Hi, How would the data look a like. And how about the query's Greetz Tbone - Original Message - From: "Nino Skilj" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 12:17 AM Subject: Table Design -- which is better? I have a general design question. Is it better to design one table with 45 columns or to split it into 3 tables with 15 columns each. There would be about 5000 rows in the table and it would be used more for reading rather than writing. I'm new to this, is there anything I'm missing? Thanks, Nino - 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 - 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
RE: Table Design -- which is better?
The data would be 1's and 0's (on/off) Nino -Original Message- From: Tbone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 4:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Table Design -- which is better? Hi, How would the data look a like. And how about the query's Greetz Tbone - Original Message - From: "Nino Skilj" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 12:17 AM Subject: Table Design -- which is better? I have a general design question. Is it better to design one table with 45 columns or to split it into 3 tables with 15 columns each. There would be about 5000 rows in the table and it would be used more for reading rather than writing. I'm new to this, is there anything I'm missing? Thanks, Nino - 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 - 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 - 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
