Apologies if this comes through twice... I *think* I fargled the To: the first time...
My boss is claiming that having multiple 1-1 tables, with an index on the keys, is better performance. Example of his claim: table_1: person_id, name, phone table_2: person_id, address, city, state, zip, country is faster than: table: person_id, name, phone, address, city, state, zip, country Don't seem right to me that you'd get better performance by having the computer have to look up more crap, even if it is indexed. And surely "SELECT name, phone FROM ..." isn't going to be slowed down *THAT* much by the other data in the table sitting there unused... Is it? You can assume we're not dumb enough to do "SELECT * FROM ..." when we only need name and phone, okay? PS Since his largest table has way less than 1000 records, this question is largely academic anyway, and he should go for more maintainable and simpler schema. But I've given up on that argument. "We might sell this to somebody someday with LOTS of records." Yeah, right. -- Like Music? http://l-i-e.com/artists.htm -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
