Path: news.easynews.com!easynews!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.r-kom.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!207.106.4.85!not-for-mail
From: "Alan" <alanshein@erols.com>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
Subject: Re: one big tables vs. many smaller
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:49:02 -0500
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <a8houv$sde2c$1@ID-114862.news.dfncis.de>
References: <a8hm7r$sqgtj$1@ID-54600.news.dfncis.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.106.4.85
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1017931551 29800524 207.106.4.85 (16 [114862])
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Xref: easynews comp.databases.oracle.server:142029
X-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 07:43:40 MST (news.easynews.com)

If the two tables are always or almost always used in combination, then it
makes sense (and from a realtional theory point of view as well) to combine
into one big one. In fact, if, from a realtional theory viewpoint they
should be combined, then definitely do so (in this case).

"Steffen Ramlow" <s.ramlow@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:a8hm7r$sqgtj$1@ID-54600.news.dfncis.de...
> what r the advantages / disadvantages of this?
>
> sample:
>
> Main (pk, id, c1, c2)
> Sub1 (pk1, fk1, c10, c11)
> Sub2 (pk2, fk2, c20, c21)
>
> rows:
>
> Main: 1,1,2,3
> Sub1: 1,1,4,5
> Sub2: 1,1,6,7
>
> vs.
>
> BigMain(pk,id,c1,c2,c10,c11,c20,c21)
>
> rows:
>
> 1,1,2,3,4,5,null,null
> 2,1,2,3,null,null,6,7
>
>
> the rows are always read as when Main and Subx would be inner joined
>
> obvious is, that BigMain has many null values (there are up to 10 sub
> tables) but u do not need to join Main and Subx
>
> i would use Main + Sub, coz it is better to maintain and to tune, but what
> about the costs of the join?
>
> both tables may contain millions of rows
>
> what r ur options?
>
>
>