September 14, 2008 at 1:28 am
Hi all.
I would like to know , from performance point of view,
what is better a table with few columns but lots of records
or table with more columns but less records.
Thanks!
Nisan.
September 14, 2008 at 4:05 am
the best is to retrieve as least as possible rows and columns using the minimal effort of I/O (and cpu).
Design your objects according to Dr Codds rules,and you'll be fine in most of the cases.
Only after you've reached a certain level of normal form, you can start tuning optimization measures, only if needed !!
Johan
Learn to play, play to learn !
Dont drive faster than your guardian angel can fly ...
but keeping both feet on the ground wont get you anywhere :w00t:
- How to post Performance Problems
- How to post data/code to get the best help[/url]
- How to prevent a sore throat after hours of presenting ppt
press F1 for solution, press shift+F1 for urgent solution 😀
Need a bit of Powershell? How about this
Who am I ? Sometimes this is me but most of the time this is me
September 14, 2008 at 8:35 am
It completely depends. Patterns of access, how much are we talking about (rows and columns), and more.
This isn't necessarily something I'd worry about too early in design. It would help if you provided more information on what you're thinking.
September 15, 2008 at 8:27 am
Different situations can cause either one to operate in a more optimal fashion.
Take the advice offered above. Do as proper a normalized design as you can to start. Then worry about modifications such as adding columns.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply