Re: splitting a large table - does it improve performance?

The query cache is based on a result set size, not table size. A query returning one row from a 100 million row table can be cached just as easily as a row returned from a 10 row table. The difference being modification frequency. Every time a table is modified (update/detele/insert/replace) the qu

Re: splitting a large table - does it improve performance?

At 09:06 AM 10/12/2004, you wrote: Absolutely! Smaller tables = smaller indexes. Smaller indexes also mean faster look-ups and faster record inserts. You could eventually drop indexes on the older tables, saving disk space (by comparison, you can't index only part of a table). Once a table becom

Re: splitting a large table - does it improve performance?

Absolutely! Smaller tables = smaller indexes. Smaller indexes also mean faster look-ups and faster record inserts. You could eventually drop indexes on the older tables, saving disk space (by comparison, you can't index only part of a table). Once a table becomes so old that no updates will

splitting a large table - does it improve performance?

"Does splitting a large table (20 Million rows) growing at 5 million or more a month into smaller tables improve performance given that the table can be split in a logical way such that 95% queries don't need to look at data spanning across the split tables" Table Description: 20 Million