On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Krinkle <krinklem...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 17, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Thomas Gries wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> for example, the extension AJAXPoll adds and uses two new database >> tables to a MediaWiki installation. >> This specific extension could be rewritten to use only one new table. >> >> My questions: >> 1. Is there a policy, convention, that more than one new table should be >> avoided in extensions ? >> 2. Are two or more new tables tolerated? > > If it it required, then sure it's tolerated. Some of the extensions currently > deployed on Wikipedia have lots more tables even. > > Of course it goes without saying, that if you can optimize the number of > tables > without sacrificing performance, then by all means: Go for it. > > If you could merge the tables and make it still perform well with the right > database indexes, why not :) > > On the other hand, if it means the table will be significantly larger, then it > may be better to keep them separate. For example, I'd say it's better two > tables > (say, 'group' and 'item', where item.it_group refers to group.gr_id). So that > you don't have to repeat all information about the group in each item-row, and > if the group has to change, no need to change all item-rows. > > -- Krinkle >
Am I reading this right as suggesting and encouragement of database denormalisation in extensions? _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
