Thanks you all, >Nate Nielsen >I would say just from a basic normalization standpoint that you should >definitely not do the 5000+ tables option. That would be an absolute mess >to maintain. Surely you wouldn't want to join 5000 tables to search all of >your clients either. yes that was a very good point. Thanks "Sebastian Mendel" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:20041117170123.38593.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Phpnews wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I have 5000+ individual clients, each clients may have 100+ records. > > Each client can modify to their own records. > > > > In the order of maintenance, robustness, scalability then performance, > > which of the following do you think is best. > > > > i) 1 big table with 500000+ records > > ii) 5000+ small tables with 100+ records (1 table for each client)? > > > > At first I thought (i) but then for robustness a colleague pointed out > > that on (ii) if clients screw up their own table it will not affect anyone > > else! > > > > any comments/suggestions are very much appreciated > > tony > > > 1 table with clients > 1 table with records > > > -- > Sebastian Mendel > > www.sebastianmendel.de www.warzonez.de www.tekkno4u.de www.nofetish.com > www.sf.net/projects/phpdatetime www.sf.net/projects/phptimesheet -- PHP Database Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
