SQL Server 2008, join or no join?
- by Patrick
Just a small question regarding joins. I have a table with around 30 fields and i was thinking about making a second table to store 10 of those fields. Then i would just join them in with the main data. The 10 fields that i was planning to store in a second table does not get queried directly, it's just some settings for the data in the first table.
Something like:
Table 1
Id
Data1
Data2
Data3
etc ...
Table 2
Id (same id as table one)
Settings1
Settings2
Settings3
Is this a bad solution? Should i just use 1 table? How much performance inpact does it have? All entries in table 1 would also then have an entry in table 2.
Small update is in order. Most of the Data fields are of the type varchar and 2 of them are of the type text. How is indexing treated? My plan is to index 2 data fields, email (varchar 50) and author (varchar 20).
And yes, all records in Table 1 will have a record in Table 2. Most of the settings fields are of the bit type, around 80%. The rest is a mix between int and varchar. The varchars can be null.
