>
> > René Tegel wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a very good idea, and in fact the only workable way.
> > > Your performance will not lower when retrieving the documents,
> cause those
> > > fields are indexed.
> > > Your memory use will decrease as well, since the file cache does
> not have to
> > > cache a big table when searching.
> >
> > Thank you (both) for your quick answers.
> > I guess I will do the split, thanks to you!
> >
> > But perhaps I didn't manage to express my biggest worry correctly:
> >
> > With one table, I do one INSERT. Now I will have to do two
> > INSERTs for each new entry. If I INSERT several times a second,
> > I am afraid of troubles caused by doubling the number of INSERTs.
> >
> > Paranoia?
>
> Could be just parania. Several time a second is not much. My guess
> is that you'll be fine. If it gets slower upgrade your hardware or
> reconfigure your OS or/and FS or/and MySQL. Anyway, my string
> opinion is that you should split the table. As i said before that
> we've
> been doing for years now (keep all blob, text fields in separate
> tables).
> For me it is a strict rule by now.
I'll second that. Split it up. Sometimes that means you have to break the
classic database normalisation, but eh... funk that.
You're inserting about the same data, just split over two inserts, I dont
think it'll be much slower. If you have huge quantities of them use block
inserts, delayed inserts, or lock tables when inserting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
