|
|
Posted by Emin on 01/02/07 16:57
Dear experts,
If I have a number of related groups of data (e.g., stock prices for
different stocks) is it better to put them into many tables (e.g., one
table per stock) or into one big table (e.g., a single table where one
column is the stock id other columns are the price and other data)?
The single table approach with a clustered primary key including the
stock id and other information that is different for each stock seems
cleaner to me. But I worry that having a single table could hurt
preformance when the database gets very large. The clustered primary
key should make queries on the single table fast, but I'm worried about
inserts. According to my vague understanding of a clustered primary
key, records are physically stored on disk based on the primary key. So
if I insert a record for a given stock does the database have to
physicall "move down" all the records that are below that or does it do
something smarter?
To summarize:
1. Should I use a single table or many tables?
2. If using a single table, how are inserts handled by the DB to
prevent inserts from getting slower and slower as more items are added
to the DB?
Thanks in advance for your help and advice.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|