At 17:22 26/03/2007, you wrote: >Hi > >I have a database with three tables (bigrams, trigrams and >tetragrams). Basically, they are: > TABLE( A, B, Count) IDX(A,B) IDX(B) > TABLE( A, B, C, Count) IDX(A,B,C) IDX(B) IDX(C) > TABLE( A, B, C, D, Count) IDX (A,B,C,D) IDX(B) IDX(C) IDX(D) > >Now, this database is quickly getting around the 2GB of disk space. >My question, about efficiency, is, it better to have: >- one big database, one connection from C code to the database >- three smaller databases, three connection from C code to the database > >Thank you >Alberto
The problem with this database is that the three tables are related, no? A,B,C and D are the same data on all tables. If it's not true and tables have separate data, you can easily split in three database files, permiting you concurrent writing and getting faster read times if are on distinct drives. If tables haven't separate data (the A on first table is the same on the second and third) you must update in cascade the 3 databases. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
