Re: one big tables vs. many smaller

From: Steffen Ramlow <s.ramlow_at_gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:11:57 +0200
Message-ID: <a8jpql$spccd$1@ID-54600.news.dfncis.de>

"Sybrand Bakker" <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message news:ql2pau49ohmrtpo8bqfp8r69c6ko83bp9p_at_4ax.com...
> Learn about normalization and denormalization.
> Normalizing the data, provided you don't want to end up in hell,
> should always have more priority than a few percent performance gain,
> if any.

is the join really so cheap?? Received on Fri Apr 05 2002 - 03:11:57 CST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Steffen Ramlow: "Re: one big tables vs. many smaller"
Previous message: Andrew Sword: "9i RAC on Windows 2000 using a SAN"
In reply to: Sybrand Bakker: "Re: one big tables vs. many smaller"
Next in thread: koert54: "Re: one big tables vs. many smaller"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US