Posted by Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP] on 10/29/05 21:30

> 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]