Re: data dictionary with a million tables

From: Van Messner <vmessner_at_netaxis.com>
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 19:49:59 -0400
Message-ID: <x4LY2.4485$fO5.190934@news14.ispnews.com>

If your developers are seriously suggesting a million tables you need to give them the technical reason why it's a bad idea. Just explain: "Enabling more than 5000 tables will cause the system weasel pins to become bowed. This leads directly to frammis fragmentation which is known to produce code inversion. Processing slows down until eventually the eggplant modules hang completely."

Van

Luis Londono wrote in message <3730EA76.15F080_at_bigplanet.net>...
>I need help with a littlle problem that I have. I have a bunch of
>developers that want to create an application using Oracle that would
>end up having probably a million very small tables (100 - 1000 records
>each). It is easier for them to develop it this way, but I am trying to
>convince them that it is not a good idea. It seems to me that the
>performance of the entire database would suffer a lot since the data
>dictionary would be over worked. Unfortunately I do not have any solid
>evidence or an argument more convincing than a gut feeling. Does anyone
>have some information that would help me? Or if I am wrong, I would
>sure like to know. Thanks.
>
>-Luis
>
>--
>Luis Londono
>Senior Systems Engineer 370 E 1130 S
>Big Planet Inc. Provo, UT 84606
>mailto: luisl_at_bigplanet.net (801) 345-7222
>
>
Received on Fri May 07 1999 - 18:49:59 CDT