one big DB or several small ones ???

[jfguilmard]

Hi,

i'm about to build a DB which should be around 200 000 rows. Each line would be 2 fields: user_name, status

So i'm wondering about performances:
Is it better to build 26 tables: first one user beginning by "a" second one by "b" etc, or one big table with everyone? I guess the first solution will increase the speed? What about the cpu? the memory?
The queries will be mostly select, and some update to change the status field...

Thx for your advice on this matter

Jeff

 

[hos2]

just put everything in one table. and you can better make it 3 fields

id,user_name,status

where id is an autoincrement field.

with 200.000 records it shouldn't be any problem.

the only thing that can also influence performance is the number of concurrent users accessing the database

 

[cottontop]

hos2,

At what number of concurrent users should you start seeing an influence in performance?

Thx

 

[hos2]

I don't know, I think that mainly depends on you're server and configuration.

As an example I have build a forum based on mysql/php with over 250.000 posts and is over 100MB in diskspace wihtin 1 year. there is no sign of problems with 10 concurrent users. but I don't know the specs of the server since it's on a webhosting in canada and I live in the netherlands. perhaps others here can give some more concrete examples when mysql is slowing down.