On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:38:15PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On 3/20/06, Craig A. James <cjames@modgraph-usa.com> wrote:
> > Design 1:
> > create table a (
> > id integer,
> > frequently_updated integer);
> >
> > create table b(
> > id integer,
> > infrequently_updated_1 integer,
> > infrequently_updated_2 integer,
> > infrequently_updated_3 integer,
> > ... etc.
> > infrequently_updated_99 integer);
> >
> > Design 2:
> > create table c(
> > id integer,
> > frequently_updated integer,
> > infrequently_updated_1 integer,
> > infrequently_updated_2 integer,
> > infrequently_updated_3 integer,
> > ... etc.
> > infrequently_updated_99 integer);
> design 1 is normalized and better
> design 2 is denormalized and a bad approach no matter the RDBMS
How is design 1 denormalized?
> "What they (MySQL) lose in usability, they gain back in benchmarks, and that's
> all that matters: getting the wrong answer really fast."
> Randal L. Schwartz
Where's that quote from?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461