network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 5 months |
| seen | Mar 29 at 15:59 | |
| stats | profile views | 0 |
|
Jan 10 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Jan 10 |
comment |
How much overhead is involved with querying a DB on the same server? This, in addition to the linked article was a very good read. Though, I have to ask, what if I was running this job hourly, or even every half hour, with tables exceeding 100k rows. The table will likely have 20-30 columns each. If we decide to implement this strategy, we would use it on ~20 tables. Wouldn't the constant truncating and inserting of full tables be detrimental to our physical drives? It would be possible to make the initial population process changes only, but then we lose the aspect of 100% in sync data, though, it may not be an issue as these tables are read only to users/apps |
|
Jan 10 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Jan 10 |
revised |
How much overhead is involved with querying a DB on the same server? added 59 characters in body |
|
Jan 9 |
comment |
How much overhead is involved with querying a DB on the same server? This bit of knowledge should be useful in our decision. Thank you. +1 |
|
Jan 9 |
awarded | Student |
|
Jan 9 |
asked | How much overhead is involved with querying a DB on the same server? |
