Posted by Neil on 10/30/05 18:22

You wrote: "You have 50-100 rows in the table and you think that slows it
down?"

I never wrote that I have 50-100 rows in the table. I said I was considering
50-100 tables.

"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uJ2c5eV3FHA.3868@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I don't think I did. But have fun.
>
>
>
>
> "Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:mgR8f.3506$yX2.132@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> You misread my post. I said 50-100 tables, not 50-100 rows.
>>
>> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in
>> message news:ewqxaaL3FHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>> machine a unique set of selections. Using one large table with machine
>>>> name as part of the primary key actually slows things down. So I'm
>>>> considering
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> This would require having about 50-100 individual selections tables in
>>>> the back end database.
>>>
>>> You have 50-100 rows in the table and you think that slows it down?
>>> Even without a clustered index or any index at all, I find it hard to
>>> believe that you can perceive any slowness whatsoever based on a scan of
>>> rows in the three figure range. And to sacrifice manageability for that
>>> seems absurd, at least to me.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Back to original message]