6

I'm developing a quick side project that needs a users table, and I want them to be able to store profile data. I was already reaching for the ASP.NET profile provider when I realized that users will only ever have one profile.

I realize that frequently changing data will impact performance on things like indexes and stuff but how frequent is too frequent?

If I have one profile change per month per user happening for say 1000 users, is that a lot?

Or are we talking more like users changing profile data on an hourly basis?

I realize this isn't an exact science but I'm trying to gauge at what point the threshold starts to peak, and since my users profile data will probably rarely change if I should bother the extra work or just wait a few decades for it to be a problem.

Amr Elgarhy
  • 66,568
  • 69
  • 184
  • 301
SelAromDotNet
  • 4,715
  • 5
  • 37
  • 59

2 Answers2

7

One thing to consider is how adding a large text column to a table will affect the layout of the rows. Some databases will store the large columns inlined with the other fixed size columns; this will make the rows variable sized and that means more work for the database when it needs to pull a row off the disk. Other databases (such as PostgreSQL) store large text columns away from the fixed size columns; this leads to fixed sized rows with quick access during table scans and the like but an extra bit of work is needed to pull out the text columns.

1000 users isn't that much in database terms so there's probably nothing to worry about one way or the other. OTOH, little one-off side projects have a nasty habit of turning into real mission critical projects when you're not looking so doing it right from the beginning is a good idea.

I think Justin Cave has covered the index issue well enough.

As long as you structure your data access properly (i.e. all access to your user table goes through one isolated pile of code) then changing your data schema for users won't be much work anyway.

mu is too short
  • 426,620
  • 70
  • 833
  • 800
4

Does the profile information actually need to be indexed? Or are you just going to be retrieving it based on the USER_ID of the table or some other indexed USER column? If the profile data isn't indexed, which seems likely to me, than there are no performance impacts to other indexes on the table.

The only reason I can think of to be concerned about putting profile information in the table is if there is a lot of data compared to the necessary information to define a user and if the USER table needs to be full scanned for some reason. In that case, increasing the size of the table would adversely affect the performance of a table scan. Assuming that you don't have a use case where it's regularly going to make sense to do a full scan on the USERS table, and given that the table will only have 1000 rows, that's probably not a big deal.

Justin Cave
  • 227,342
  • 24
  • 367
  • 384