On Friday 13 February 2004 10:59, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> > Well, thousands of tables is probably "too much", but a hundred tables or
> > two in a database shouldn't cause problems. Don't see why you'd want them
> > though.
>
> If that's your general advice (a hundred or more tables in a
> database not making sense) I should like to learn why. Is that
> a sure sign of overdesign ? Excess normalization ? Bad
> separation of duty ? I am asking since our schema is at
> about 200 relations and growing.
The original mail mentioned many "C tables" all with the same columns.
Obviously you need as many different tables as required to model your data,
but many tables all with identical schema?
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
