Posted by bob.chatman@gmail.com on 09/29/07 06:52

On Sep 28, 9:42 pm, klenwell <klenw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 5:39 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>
> > "klenwell" <klenw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1191012645.721457.124010@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> I went up and down that development path for years before I realized that
> ...
> `user_editcount` int(11) default NULL,
> PRIMARY KEY (`user_id`),
> UNIQUE KEY `user_name` (`user_name`),
> KEY `user_email_token` (`user_email_token`)
> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=1 ;
>
> Tom

This is actually very interesting. I have been studying user systems a
lot over the last year or so and have never seen minimal tables in any
of the active/popular applications. Even the PHPBB3 is a huge offender
to your suggestion with their whopping 72 fields in their user table.
I have never really had any issues with dealing with tables with a
large number of entries, assuming they arent replicated or whatever.
In fact, i have only ever read about/seen/been forced to use linked
tables when data is replicated.

Can you provide any reasoning for your minimal approach?

[Back to original message]