I plan to have about 30-450 tables in the future (they are created gradually, depending on the amount of information). So, will it be too disastrous to have 400 tables (max) at the end, with 5-20 records each ? Do I need this way, or can it be very detrimental?

PS only 1 DB , tables with text. Just because there are a lot of tables, it helps to realize the creation of categories in categories.

  • 3
    categories in categories ... but why didn’t suit the option with an additional field parent in which the parent ID will be written? - thunder
  • And what did not suit the option that was described here ? - etki
  • This is also an option, but I need to know too many bad tables? just remodel for a very long time - Man
  • Just having 5,000 products and 100 categories in the 1st table is not very convenient - Person
  • 3
    @ Yura Suchko, no, wait) goods in one table, categories in another, linking goods to categories in the third ... this is at least. but for the EVERY category, the table will eventually be expensive, and it will be necessary to keep track of the names of the tables ... do not dig a hole :) look at the world easier .... - thunder

1 answer 1

If you leave aside the issues of modeling, then having a lot of tables is good when modifying (fewer locks and rebuilding indexes), but bad when sampling (if you have to combine them in queries). So the final answer depends on how your base will be used.