Management seems like the biggest reason for me. Just from a time spent point of view, I would go with 16 tables instead of 1600. Not only that, I wonder if there would be a big memory hit from having all those objects open at once. Just seems to me that mysql was designed for big tables, 1600 tables is really quite a few.
You do have a point though. I just don't think it would help that much (escpecially if it's using a lot of indexes). Indexes will slow down the writes, but that doesn't matter much since it will be at night. -----Original Message----- From: Roger Baklund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: adam nelson Subject: RE: best practices * Stephen S Zappardo >> a) 1 db with 16 tables b) 100 dbs each with 16 tables * adam nelson > Certainly 1 db with 16 tables. Why? Normally, bigger means slower... -- Roger --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
