On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 04:36:32PM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
On mar, 2003-01-07 at 16:08, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Separate tables in single database is completely equivalent to separate tables in separate databases (databases aren't real, tables are real). I simply don't see any point in changing that.
That was my point -- your suggestion (separate tables, one db) will be no faster than the present situation (separate tables, separate dbs), and little faster than Paul's suggestion (combined tables, one db), as logjams on the English wiki will continue to affect both the many anglophone users and the users on other languages in all three cases.
It wasn't about performance but about common interwiki and users.
Having script open 2 databases would required two connections, wouldn't it ? Now that would be slower.