Rows and Columns can effect performance...and again it all depends on what
you are doing in the select!


-----Original Message-----
From: Johnny Le [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 22 April 2005 15:42
To: SQL
Subject: Re: speed?

So to sum up, the rows would effect the speed, but not the columns.  Is that
it?

The reason I asked is because we have one table of 82 columns and we only
work with 7 columns.  To me that is just bad database design. So I thought
it would be better if we split the table into two: one with the 7 columns we
need and the other with 75 columns we don't every query, but since speed is
not the factor, I don't really have good reasons to ask my boss to split it.

Johnny


> As with many things in the DBMS world, the answer is, "Maybe.  It 
> depends."
> The primary things that will affect your performance are the row size, 
> the
> datatypes involved, and the indexing you have in place.  Secondary to 
> that
> will be hardware - things like the amount of memory and type of disk
> storage.  However, I doubt very much that you will see a performance
> difference of 2x no matter what you try.
> 
> --
> Eric
> _____________________
> "Once the game is over, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
> "
> --  Italian proverb
> 
> 
> 
 

> 
                      
> "Johnny Le"

> 
                      
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]        To:       "SQL" <[email protected]>

> 
                      
> >                        cc:

> 
                                               
> Subject:  speed?                                                 
                      
> 04/22/2005 09:53

> 
                      
> AM

> 
                      
> Please respond to

> 
                      
> sql

> 
 

> 
 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Does the number of columns in a table effect the performance?  For 
> example,
> I want to select 7 fields and 100 rows of a 7 column table with 
> millions of
> rows.  Will that be faster than if I select 7 fields and 100 rows of 
> an 82
> column table with millions of rows?  So 7 vs. 82 columns.  All other
> factors remain the same.  I am using MS SQL Server 2000.  I would 
> think it
> is faster.  What do you think? If it is indeed faster, how much faster 
> are
> we talking about here? double or tripple the speed?
> 
> Johnny
> 



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble 
Ticket application

http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:6:2240
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/6
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:6
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.6
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Reply via email to