Yeah...I suppose it is down to each RDBMS but I know for SQL Server the performance difference would not even significant or even on the scale.
-----Original Message----- From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 October 2004 15:36 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Field Naming Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) wrote: > "but when you have DBs with hundreds of tables, this can add up." > > Erm...that statement isn't true. The DB will probably work faster with > grouped tablenames over ad-hoc names. With the one database that I know enough about the internals to say something sensible about it, PostgreSQL, I can only think of reasons why it would be slower. Raw size, index access patterns of the catalogs etc. would all make this slower. Jochem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=38 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:181855 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
