Re: One or more tables?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/02/07 14:58, Usama Dar wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2007 6:35 PM, rokj <rjaklic(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> For an example let me say that I have a big (over 1 million) user
>> "base". Then every user does a lot of inserting/updating of data.
>> Would it be better to create different tables for insert/updating for
>> every user or would it be better just to have one big table with all
>> data (tables would have of course the same columns, ...). How do you
>> cope with this kind of things?
>>
>> 1.example (1 enormous table)
>> tablename (id, user_id, datetime, some_data)
>>
>> 2. example (a big number of tables)
>> tablename_user_id( id, datetime, some_data)
>
>
> Although there isn't enough information in the email, but instead of
> creating a separate table for every user, you could use one table ,
> partitioned on userid, that would , however, add a maint overhead whenever
> you add a new user.

Cluster by *range* of user ids, and preallocate some number of
tablespaces.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

%SYSTEM-F-FISH, my hovercraft is full of eels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHU0tsS9HxQb37XmcRAhPoAJsESJL/Zs+SBRisowPXZbWQzIZqSgCeMEJE
uKC47H0oPOI6qxxCFpipD9E=
=A0ks
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----