Re: cost of having MANY tables

From: <karsten_schmidt8891_at_my-deja.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 12:21:00 GMT
Message-ID: <82lifa$1c6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>

Steve,

 How about this:

 Table Customer,
 pkey cust_id,
 column cust_name,
 .....

 Table Cust_contacts
 pkey contact_id,
 column cust_id fkey to Customer:cust_id,  column contact_data,
 .....

 Worst case you get on extra table per column, not per row.

 if you end up having more than a couple of hundred tables or so, i  suggest reviewing the datamodel again.

 IMHO, you only need to worry about partitioning if you get more than say 100 MB per table. - but this depends on the actual application.  Even then, using the Oracle 8 features, it should be transparent for the application.

Karsten

In article <384D3F65.31550D7A_at_naweb.com>,   steve parker <steve_at_naweb.com> wrote:

[BIG snip]
> >
> > That requirement sounds more like a parent-child relationship and a
> > couple of surrogate keys to me (two two tables) or a nested
table/varray
> > type arrangement (one table)...
> >
> > ... not thousands and thousands...
> >
> > Cheers
> > Connor
> > --
> > ===========================================
> > Connor McDonald
> > "These views mine, no-one elses etc etc"
> > connor_mcdonald_at_yahoo.com
> >
> > "Some days you're the pigeon, and some days you're the statue."

>
>   Can you elaborate?
>
> would a varray allow for a list of no imposed limit?
>
> i have a table of "items".  Each "item" has a field that is a list

with no
> imposed limit. How would you do this? I am not an extremely experienced DB

> designer...
>
> thanks much,
> steve
>
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Wed Dec 08 1999 - 06:21:00 CST