1000 databases or 1 database with 10000 tables?

Hi,
I am in the need of getting 1000 sites up.
Usually every site has a db with 10 tables.

Now, what would be better, to set 1000 databases, or to set one database and use table prefix for each site? This would lead to a db with 10000 tables.

Would there be any performance slow down if I set them all into one db and use table prefix for each site?

Let me know your thoughts on this.

Thanks

 

You can go with either, most of the databases will not hav any probs with this.

 

Same thing.

Peace,

 

There are other factors to consider... for example with shared hosting most hosts limit the maximum number of concurrent connections per db so by splitting them you will get X per site rather than sharing X across all of them. Likewise for data integrity, if someone hacked one db they could only damage that one site rather than all of the sites plus depending on which SQL server it is it may have one file per db so again by splitting you dont risk corruption taking out all the sites.

Personally I would split them unless you are likely to want some shared data between the sites.

 

It's a dedicated box, no way to host 1000 sites on a shared.

From what I know, the db on Mysql Server has each table on a file, so there would be no problem with getting it corrupted.

I am thinking to use a single db as I have to connect to all sites regularly, so instead of starting and ending connections 1000 times, I will only do it once, and here I think would be the big performance improvement.

 

The same thing, but personally I'd prefer 100 db, and 100 tables with each db.

 

If you are using MySQL and running on a Linux box, then there will be no speed difference, because MySQL creates a directory for each db and 2 files for each table. Because of Linux's excellent directory caching, it should make no difference speed-wise. The controlling factor would then be the DB connections.