Greetings, folks.
Hoping someone here can give me even a half-informed (or at least
well-argued) opinion on which route to take for better performance (or
indeed if there actually will be any difference) between these two options;
- Hold all data (approximately 100 columns) in a single table, or
- Separate data into smaller tables (of approximately 20 columns each).
Only 5 or so columns will be accessed with any regularity; my concern is
whether there'd be more overhead in having large records in a single table,
or having multiple tables.
For the record, the data'll be in SQL Server 2005 Express and accessed
through classic ASP.
With everything only in design phase at the moment, I'm not very keen on
creating & mass-populating with dummy data to do performance analyses (call
me lazy, but I'd expect someone out there has already gone through the
exercise).
Thanks in advance for your help.

Signature
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom - "Australia's Web Presence Specialists"
http://www.cognicom.net.au/
telephone (0417) 45-77-66
facsimile (02) 9824-2240
Bob Lehmann - 31 Jul 2007 03:03 GMT
You should ping Joe Celko (--celko) in
microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming.
I'm certain he'll have constructive advice.
Bob Lehmann
> Greetings, folks.
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
Bob Milutinovic - 01 Aug 2007 08:30 GMT
> You should ping Joe Celko (--celko) in
> microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming.
>
> I'm certain he'll have constructive advice.
Thanks Bob, I'll head over there now :-)

Signature
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom - "Australia's Web Presence Specialists"
http://www.cognicom.net.au/
telephone (0417) 45-77-66
facsimile (02) 9824-2240