A performance question...

Anon

Hi,

I was searching for some benchmarks on MySQL, but didn't find any that answered my question...
I just wondered what would be faster to query : One table with 100k entrys or 100 tables with 100 entrys each?
Of course I'm not referring to 'select * from db' - queries, but I thought even with 'where' it could take more time!?

Anybody know something about it?

jim_keller

I really don't know for sure, but my guess would definitely be one table with 100k entries. Mysql is very good at handling a lot of rows (well over 100k), and having 100 tables just seems very silly.

-Jim Keller
http://www.centerfuse.net

[deleted]

It doesn't matter much wether you read from 100 small files or one big file, you still have to read the same amount of data, and reading lots of data is faster from one file than 100 files (unless the smaller files are on seperate disks, but by the time you have 100 separate disks, you're not using crappy old mysql anymore)

More importantly; how easy is it for you to maintain one table vs 100 tables?

Imagine doing an update on all records, that would mean 100 queries to change 100k records... Or a top-10 of latest records.. from 100 tables... ouch....

Make it easy on yourself, use one large table. (btw, 100k is not large, 100M is large🙂 )

A forum, a FAQ, what else do you need?