|
|
Posted by Colin McKinnon on 05/11/05 11:13
cover wrote:
> If you're writing many databases that aren't necessarily associated
> with each other (ie parts, vacation days, how you like your steak
> done, and school you attended, etc; as examples), does it make more
> sense to have one database name and several tables for the data topics
> above OR multiple databases since they aren't associated with each
> other?
>
> It would SEEM easier to have a single database with multiple tables
> from a data management perspective as long as there's no risk of data
Why?
This is way OT for PHP, and please don't cross-post, but I can't resist the
troll.
If they are truly unrelated things, why lump them together? Maybe it works
for you with a small number of tables, and maybe as another poster
suggested there are additional costs under the terms of the hosting
agreement for additional databases.
Seperating them provides lower granularity, simplifies independent
management of the data (different access controls, different backup
strategies, different performance based configuration, seperate upgrade
paths).
But by far the most important reason is that it simplifies the system. I'd
much rather work on a system with 10 databases containing 10 tables than 1
database with 100 tables.
HTH
C.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|