Re: Connecting to Multiple Databases vs A Single One

Connections to mysql are fairly cheap on the client side, but can eat up a good chunk of memory server side (depending on lots of things that a good DBA could explain better than I can).

If the databases are on the same physical machine it'd probably be more efficient to combine them into one database. Of course as things grow you may hit a point where you have to split them up or it becomes more efficient to do so.

Comment on Re: Connecting to Multiple Databases vs A Single One

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Connecting to Multiple Databases vs A Single One by Cop (Initiate) on Oct 10, 2007 at 01:29 UTC
Very bad suggestion. One thing determines whether you should use databases or database: whether data are tightly coupled, related. It has absolutely nothing to do with physical boxes.	[reply]
Re^3: Connecting to Multiple Databases vs A Single One by cowboy (Friar) on Oct 10, 2007 at 21:31 UTC
Actually the op was asking about efficiency. If the databases are on the same machine using mysql as he stated, then it is more efficient to have one connection to one database. If the data grows to the point that you can't keep it all on one machine then you can be more efficient by partitioning it into different databases on different machines.	[reply]