Tom Collins wrote:
I think we'll get better domain alias support if you pull column
> `domain` out of table `Domains` and add it to the table `domain_alias`.
I agree. This makes it easy to make sure domain names are unique.
> I'm not sure we need to have a "master" and "alias" -- the names c
Rick Widmer wrote:
I wasn't quite ready for this, but it has been on my list for a long
time... since it has come up, let me throw up this database structure
for comment. I have reduced the number of tables (in a full
installation) and made it relational.-
CREATE TABLE relay(
ip_addr
On Sep 21, 2007, at 4:32 PM, Rick Widmer wrote:
Comments?
I think we'll get better domain alias support if you pull column
`domain` out of table `Domains` and add it to the table `domain_alias`.
"Domain name" to "domain on the system" is a many to one
relationship, so the name should be i
I wasn't quite ready for this, but it has been on my list for a long
time... since it has come up, let me throw up this database structure
for comment. I have reduced the number of tables (in a full
installation) and made it relational.-
CREATE TABLE Domains(
domain_idbi
Rick Macdougall wrote:
> Robin Bowes wrote:
>> What sort of size of database are folk using in the real world? How many
>> users?
>>
>> What's the most common no. of users?
>>
>> R.
>>
>
> I'm guessing 200 - 2000 but that's based on the servers I manage for
> clients (around 20 or so).
>
> The b
Robin Bowes wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Robin Bowes wrote:
Tom Collins wrote:
I understand what you're proposing, but I would suggest that it would
add complexity for little gain. Of course, that would need benchmarking
to establish which is the faster method.
If someone can give me a large
Rick Macdougall wrote:
> Robin Bowes wrote:
>> Tom Collins wrote:
>>
>> I understand what you're proposing, but I would suggest that it would
>> add complexity for little gain. Of course, that would need benchmarking
>> to establish which is the faster method.
>>
>> If someone can give me a large d
Robin Bowes wrote:
Tom Collins wrote:
I understand what you're proposing, but I would suggest that it would
add complexity for little gain. Of course, that would need benchmarking
to establish which is the faster method.
If someone can give me a large dataset, I'm happy to crunch some numbers.
Tom Collins wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Rick Widmer wrote:
>> If I remember right, speed was the reason for separate tables, but
>> testing showed it was not faster. I think the single table works
>> better because all your mail users are accessing the same table, and
>> its indexes so
