| Adding columns vs Adding tables [message #269844] |
Mon, 24 September 2007 18:28  |
rrvvg_1976
Messages: 3
Registered: September 2007
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
On a general basis, I know that adding a couple of columns to an existing table performs better (and is the best way to do it) than adding another table with two columns.
But now, I'm running into a dispute with our DBA. Here's the requirement:
I have a huge request string that has all kinds of information. I want to split that request into corresponding tables and columns, with a TransactionID serving the purpose of a primary/foreign key. Which means, I will be having a one-to-one association between tables.
Now, our DBA says that since it is a one-to-one relation, there is no need for us to create multiple tables, but it is better to create one huge table with about 30-40 columns.
But I argue, saying that what if the request keeps increasing? Are we going to add more and more columns? And even if the request does not increase, it makes more sense from a business stand point of view, where reporting is very easy.
Can anyone comment on this please?
Thanks a lot,
-Vj
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Adding columns vs Adding tables [message #270091 is a reply to message #270033] |
Tue, 25 September 2007 12:45  |
jrich
Messages: 35
Registered: February 2006
|
Member |
|
|
From the logical model perspective, one table is correct. However at the physical level, there are reasons to have multiple tables. For example, if you full scan the table a lot and you have large columns not needed in the scan, then moving the columns you do not need to a second table should improve performance.
JR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] 
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
