Le mercredi 03 septembre 2008 à 22:07 +0100, Luke a écrit : > seperate databases is a hassle, since you have to mess with multiple > connections, I would go with the one database. Just cut down on data > storage, use userids instead of usernames for identification in the tables > and such. Not only is it a hassle, it is also a major system bottleneck on most filesystems. If using MySQL for example, each database creates one directory. If you get to 10.000 directories in /var/lib/mysql for example (based on Debian systems), you will start to feel the weight of having so many items in only one directory. If you ever reach 30.000, you'll start to think it *really* was a bad idea. Not to mention any database backup will be accordingly slower. Personal recommendation: don't go for the multiple database solution if you plan to have more than 100 and you can avoid it. Yannick > 2008/9/3 Martin Zvarík <mzvarik@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Hi, > > > > I am working on CMS-Blog system, which will be using approx. 10 000 users. > > > > I have a basic question - I believe there are only two options - which one > > is better? > > > > 1) having separate databases for each blog = fast > > (problem: what if I will need to do search in all of the blogs for some > > article?) > > > > 2) having all blogs in one database - that might be 10 000 * 100 articles = > > too many rows, but easy to search and maintain, hmm? > > > > --- > > > > I am thinking of having some file etc. "cms-core.php" in some base > > directory and every subdirectory (= users subdomains) would include this > > "cms-core" file with some individual settings. Is there better idea? > > > > I appreciate your discussion on this topic. > > > > Martin Zvarik > > > > > > > > -- > > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
