Merlin,
> I agree though
> that a single table approach is best unless 1) the table has to scale
> to really, really large sizes or 2) there is a lot of churn on the
> data (lots of bulk inserts and deletes).
while agreeing, an additional question: could you please pronounce
"really, really large" in other units, like Gigabytes or Number of
rows (with average rowlength in bytes, of course)
That is: what table size would you or anybody consider really, really
large actually?
Harakd
--
GHUM Harald Massa
persuadere et programmare
Harald Armin Massa
Spielberger Straße 49
70435 Stuttgart
0173/9409607
no fx, no carrier pigeon
-
LASIK good, steroids bad?