![]() |
Register | Login | |||||
![]() |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
![]()
| |
0 user currently in Programming. | 3 guests |
Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Programming - How many is too many? |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
User | Post | ||
windwaker![]() Ball and Chain Trooper WHY ALL THE MAYONNAISE HATE Level: 61 ![]() Posts: 647/1797 EXP: 1860597 For next: 15999 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 4 days Last activity: 6 days |
| ||
Referring to columns in SQL tables. How many is too many? If I have ~60 columns, does that affect the speed at which things are loaded (or at least, greatly). | |||
Gavin![]() Fuzzy Rhinoceruses don't play games. They fucking charge your ass. Level: 43 ![]() Posts: 352/799 EXP: 551711 For next: 13335 Since: 03-15-04 From: IL, USA Since last post: 13 hours Last activity: 13 hours |
| ||
i'm really no expert on DB efficiency, but i'm just curious what would require 60 columns in a single table? as long as all 60 are unique and necessary fields i would think it would be alright... but i believe it all depends on how you are accessing the data. i'm sure you can have a 60 field table that is technically as efficient as possible, it all depends.. like i said though, i'm no expert, i've only created a few tables before and i hardly know if they are as efficient as possible. |
|||
windwaker![]() Ball and Chain Trooper WHY ALL THE MAYONNAISE HATE Level: 61 ![]() Posts: 657/1797 EXP: 1860597 For next: 15999 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 4 days Last activity: 6 days |
| ||
The6thLime wants 60 fields instead of like 120 two fielded rows ![]() |
|||
sloat Level: 16 Posts: 22/85 EXP: 18044 For next: 2212 Since: 05-21-04 From: South Central Delaware Since last post: 19 days Last activity: 5 hours |
| ||
more rows are more efficient i believe. remember, database systems are designed to be able to handle hundreds of thousands of rows, so 120 rows isn't going to hurt anything, especially if you set up an index. i recently had a database set up with about 30,000 rows of 4 fields and i didn't notice any slowdown when accessing it. |
|||
FreeDOS![]() Lava Lotus Wannabe-Mod :< Level: 59 Posts: 932/1657 EXP: 1648646 For next: 24482 Since: 03-15-04 From: Seattle Since last post: 6 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
It depends on your needs... but in general it doesn't matter if you use them responsibly. I have a users table that has 40 fields and it works perfectly. Spanning an entry across more than one row creates overhead and slows it down... because of fragmentation. ![]() Just keep things simple and you won't get into trouble. Making one thing have more than one row just because of you have "id" and "data" fields is not simple. |
|||
Vystrix Nexoth Level: 30 Posts: 196/348 EXP: 158678 For next: 7191 Since: 03-15-04 From: somewhere between anima and animus Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
right. as long as each column is unique and necessary, go nuts. perhaps post the table schema here so we can comment on it. sloat: he's talking about 60 columns, not 60 rows. *chuckles* indeed, if 60 rows is too great a load for the SQL system to bear, then either the SQL system or the programmer utilizing it could do well with some improvements, and I'll wager it's the former. |
|||
Narf Hi Tuvai! (reregistering while banned) Level: 16 ![]() Posts: 2/100 EXP: 17634 For next: 2622 Since: 12-26-04 Since last post: 22 hours Last activity: 14 hours |
| ||
A lot of columns won't do any harm, unless you overuse them and select too much data each time. For example, my members table has 77 columns, and I really don't need the data from every single one of those 77 columns on every page on my site. |
Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Programming - How many is too many? |
![]() ![]() ![]() |