[wp-hackers] Rebuttal (re: Meta tables: Take 5)
wordpress at santosj.name
Fri Jul 24 15:38:30 UTC 2009
I understand your argument that having a single table for meta is an
entirely bad idea based on the following assumptions.
1. Having hundreds of millions of rows is a performance problem for
searching, insertion, etc.
2. Having multiple blogs using the same table is a bad idea because the
size of the single table increases exponentially.
3. It quite frankly just plain sucks and is "bad design."
Let me refute these claims, and if you have any further ones, then let
me know as I don't want to put up a straw man. These are just the ones
that I've heard in the past as to why single table solutions are
terrible. You might have others.
1. With proper indexes, performance problems shouldn't be an issue.
Having millions of rows in majority of cases shouldn't hinder most of
the use cases with the correct indexes to search on.
2. I would probably state that having multiple meta tables for each blog
would be a good idea as it doesn't have to be tied to just all of the
blogs for a single table but for a single blog for MU installations.
3. It is in my opinion that having multiple tables with the same
structure and tiny amount of rows is even worse design than a single
table. Alas, a compromise can probably be found between a single table
and multiple tables.
I will contend that for the majority of non-MU and plain WordPress
installations, having a single meta meta table will never even get close
to reaching 100,000 rows, let alone the millions that would be required
to degrade performance.
I was actually going to flame you based on my (now correct) assumption
that it would be creating new tables. I think that it would be against
my doing so, or at least not publicly (the flame email should be
arriving to your email soon).
More information about the wp-hackers