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=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 it'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 >=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=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 it'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
IT/Web Developer - KnifeCenter.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/l= ist/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us

= --Apple-Mail=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5D-- Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: [WebDNA] Which is more efficient? New db or add to existing db (John Butler 2013)
  2. [WebDNA] Which is more efficient? New db or add to existing db (Alex Agnew 2013)
--Apple-Mail=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 it'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 >=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=_D70F4674-09D8-4AD2-83E1-2005C0F83C5D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 it'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
IT/Web Developer - KnifeCenter.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/l= ist/talk@webdna.us Bug 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)