On Sep 6, 2007, at 20:46 , Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 20:20 -0500, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 2007, at 19:58 , Ow Mun Heng wrote:
>>
>>> Don't denormalise the table?
>>
>> Yes. Don't denormalize the tables.
>
> I would believe performance would be better it being denormalised. (in
> this case)
I assume you've arrived at the conclusion because you have (a) shown
that the performance with a normalized schema does not meet your
needs; (b) benchmarked the normalized schema under production
conditions; (c) benchmarked the denormalized schema under production
conditions; and (d) shown that performance is improved in the
denormalized case to arrive at that conclusion. I'm interested to see
the results of your comparisons.
Regardless, it sounds like you've already made up your mind. Why ask
for comments?
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net