Posted by Neil on 10/29/05 23:50

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]