Posted by Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP] on 10/30/05 15:43

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]