David Blomstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/07/2004 05:37:08
PM:
> I'm working on several websites that will be driven
> primarily by two databases - Geography and Animals.
> The Geography database will feature information about
> nations, provinces and states, such as capitals,
> population,
4 or 5 tables is pretty small. We've got about 200 tables here, some
containing over 100 million rows which still runs well on a simple PIII
test server.
You are definitely better off having one database serve this data. If
you want a backup, the MySQL replication stuff works very well.
On Thu,
The not very useful answer would be: It depends on what you are trying to
achieve.
More usefully (I hope):
I work with a complex web application which is also strongly modularized.
This system is generally delivered using several databases, residing on
different servers, to allow us to cope with
> Hi,
Howdy
>
> I know that Mysql handles large database very well, but there
> is a project
> that requires more than 2000 small databases(about 20 talbes
> with a few
> rows) to be created within a Mysql server. Could somebody
> tell me does it
> make sense?
Err.. Sure it makes sense I
My recommendation would be to use phpmyadmin, http://www.phpmyadmin.net/.
Takes just a few minutes to pull out the original database schema then feed
it back to create new tables. Or you can do it with command-line
instructions. 2000 small databases shouldn't be a problem as long as the
server it'
Hi Rebecca,
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 05:19, Rebecca Hall wrote:
> I was recently assigned to finish a project started by a previous employee.
> The objective is to collect data from numerous geographic locations, and
> then analyze the data at the central office. The goal is to look for
> combi
