Our infrastructure group had a consultant come in for an eval.Currently, one development group who support many different groupscreate a database per group (sales, etc). The consultant said that thiswas inefficient, and that we should combine all of the databases intoone database. The Infrastructure group now wants us to use one db foreverything.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the advantages / disadvantages of these approaches.It depends what "everything" is. If you are mixing sales data, manufacturing data, security data, then I would still create a number of smaller databases. If, however, all the data is related (for instance, all data uses a common product table, all data uses a common user table, etc.) then maybe it is an OK idea. If the various databases exist currently and there is never any need to do joins across databases, then I think it is a silly idea.|||The data isn't related at all. Are there any performance implications to either method?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment