Subject | Table column count and performance |
---|---|
Author | Rick Debay |
Post date | 2005-04-29T21:14:58Z |
I have data that I keep in two tables, and the rows have a one-to-one
relationship. There are some columns that must be in table A, and some
that must be in table B. The majority of the columns can go in either.
If table B is used much more intensely than table B, would it improve
performance to keep most of the columns (at least not the ones heavily
used) in table A?
I don't know how the database caches table data, if a whole row goes in
the cache or only the columns referenced, so I want to make sure this
will be a useful optimization.
The number of columns in question is 339, with over 2KB per row.
relationship. There are some columns that must be in table A, and some
that must be in table B. The majority of the columns can go in either.
If table B is used much more intensely than table B, would it improve
performance to keep most of the columns (at least not the ones heavily
used) in table A?
I don't know how the database caches table data, if a whole row goes in
the cache or only the columns referenced, so I want to make sure this
will be a useful optimization.
The number of columns in question is 339, with over 2KB per row.