Re: [WebDNA] Which is more efficient? New db or add to existing db
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2013
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 110475
interpreted = N
texte = --Apple-Mail=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5DContent-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableContent-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1it's really a question that cannot be answered fairly without more =information.... or without one of us reading books about db/data ="normalization", think.The idea in my mind right now is that if you are storing records in a =large and/or busy db who main/sole purpose is just to record the data in =your would-be new field, then that is a waste - look at all the other =fields with all those blanks... that is not efficient. Webdna may be so =fast on small/low sites/db/traffic that you won't notice anyway... but =maybe knifecenters.com has to watch resource consumption?-GOn 2013-06-26, at 2:21 PM, Alex Agnew wrote:> We're working on a new project that will require one of two options:> 1) add a new field to one of our existing DBs (the db is one of our =larger ones, too)> 2) Make a new db that contains a primary key and the desired new field>=20> Which would be the most efficient or is there any difference in terms =of performance?>=20> --=20> Alex Agnew> IT/Web Developer - KnifeCenter.com> alex@knifecenters.com> --------------------------------------------------------- This message =is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To =unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: =http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: =support@webdna.us--Apple-Mail=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5DContent-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableContent-Type: text/html;charset=iso-8859-1it's =really a question that cannot be answered fairly without more =information.... or without one of us reading books about db/data ="normalization", think.
The idea in my mind right now is that if you =are storing records in a large and/or busy db who main/sole purpose is =just to record the data in your would-be new field, then that is a waste =- look at all the other fields with all those blanks... that is not =efficient. Webdna may be so fast on small/low sites/db/traffic =that you won't notice anyway... but maybe
knifecenters.com has to watch =resource =consumption?
-G
On =2013-06-26, at 2:21 PM, Alex Agnew wrote:
We're working on a new project that will require one of two =options:
1) add a new field to one of our existing DBs (the db is =one of our larger ones, too)
2) Make a new db that contains a =primary key and the desired new field
Which would be the most efficient or is there any =difference in terms of performance?
-- =
Alex Agnew
---------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed tothe mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/l=ist/talk@webdna.usBug Reporting: support@webdna.us
=--Apple-Mail=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5D--
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
--Apple-Mail=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5DContent-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableContent-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1it's really a question that cannot be answered fairly without more =information.... or without one of us reading books about db/data ="normalization", think.The idea in my mind right now is that if you are storing records in a =large and/or busy db who main/sole purpose is just to record the data in =your would-be new field, then that is a waste - look at all the other =fields with all those blanks... that is not efficient. Webdna may be so =fast on small/low sites/db/traffic that you won't notice anyway... but =maybe knifecenters.com has to watch resource consumption?-GOn 2013-06-26, at 2:21 PM, Alex Agnew wrote:> We're working on a new project that will require one of two options:> 1) add a new field to one of our existing DBs (the db is one of our =larger ones, too)> 2) Make a new db that contains a primary key and the desired new field>=20> Which would be the most efficient or is there any difference in terms =of performance?>=20> --=20> Alex Agnew> IT/Web Developer - KnifeCenter.com> alex@knifecenters.com> --------------------------------------------------------- This message =is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To =unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: =http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: =support@webdna.us--Apple-Mail=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5DContent-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableContent-Type: text/html;charset=iso-8859-1it's =really a question that cannot be answered fairly without more =information.... or without one of us reading books about db/data ="normalization", think.
The idea in my mind right now is that if you =are storing records in a large and/or busy db who main/sole purpose is =just to record the data in your would-be new field, then that is a waste =- look at all the other fields with all those blanks... that is not =efficient. Webdna may be so fast on small/low sites/db/traffic =that you won't notice anyway... but maybe
knifecenters.com has to watch =resource =consumption?
-G
On =2013-06-26, at 2:21 PM, Alex Agnew wrote:
We're working on a new project that will require one of two =options:
1) add a new field to one of our existing DBs (the db is =one of our larger ones, too)
2) Make a new db that contains a =primary key and the desired new field
Which would be the most efficient or is there any =difference in terms of performance?
-- =
Alex Agnew
---------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed tothe mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/l=ist/talk@webdna.usBug Reporting: support@webdna.us
=--Apple-Mail=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5D--
John Butler
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
how to use WebCat w. SSL & CyberCash (1998)
Re:no [search] with NT (1997)
Roundup (2001)
Debug mode (1999)
[WebDNA] Another strange WebDNA problem (2013)
WebCat2b15MacPlugin - [protect] (1997)
no? marks in the links (2003)
Copyright that puppy (1998)
HTML encoding in URLs (1997)
When will this BUG be fixed -- or at least LOOKED AT ... ? (2002)
Converting back to numerical date (2003)
Add to Cart & List of Products (1997)
Math (1997)
WebCat2b13MacPlugin - [math][date][/math] problem (1997)
[WebDNA] Cheap tiny VPS running WebDNA 7.0 FastCGI !!! (2010)
primer/tutorial question (2004)
Protecting a folder (2000)
Thanks Grant (1997)
Where's Cart Created ? (1997)
WebCat2 Append problem (B14Macacgi) (1997)