Yep, a decent clustered index will fo you fine, 300K records is piddly compared to some of the DB's we use here (10-15 million records within some).
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 21 January 2003 06:26 To: SQL Subject: RE: Data storage best practice As long as you index your table, 300,000 should not be any problem what so ever. Christian Watt -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 10:03 PM To: SQL Subject: Data storage best practice I'm running SQL 2k for the lists and have some new enhancements (like full text searching) going in soon. I've got a question about the best way to store and retrieve the data. With a DB of 300,000 records with about 100,000 records per year, is it better to have all of the records in a single table or would it be better to have multiple tables with each years records? On one hand I'd have a single huge table and on the other I'd have 1 table for each year with about 100,000 records. Which would be the better? Is there any downside to having a single large table? Thanks Michael Dinowitz Master of the House of Fusion http://www.houseoffusion.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=6 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=6 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
