<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Performance impact when splitting one large table into 2 or more in App Development</title>
    <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Performance-impact-when-splitting-one-large-table-into-2-or-more/m-p/1565765#M41211</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Your ID field is not a primary key on your current table.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Splitting the tables and using ID as key field will link tray packer to both codes, for example.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is this what you want and correct?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 12:08:53 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>swuehl</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-04-05T12:08:53Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Performance impact when splitting one large table into 2 or more</title>
      <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Performance-impact-when-splitting-one-large-table-into-2-or-more/m-p/1564930#M41134</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi everyone&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a question regarding self service and the impact of splitting large tables into two (or three for that matter). We have a self service solution where we as the BI department provide standard tables in an app and show certain KPIs which are important to the company. The standard tables contain a few columns (let's say 10) of the actual SQL tables (with about 100 columns and many text fields). I was wondering what the impact would be of breaking one such 100 column table into two or more tables which share a common ID field (1 to 1 relationship) and then concatenating them all?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;Current:&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Machines:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;TABLE&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Id&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Code&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Description&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;General description&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Value&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Capacity&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Make&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Model&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;TP001&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Tray packer&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Tray packer on line A2&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;$200 000&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1500&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Make1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;AAA&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;FONT color="#FF0000"&gt;2&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;FM001&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Filling machine&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Grey filling machine on line A2 with automatic splicer&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;$450 000&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;5000&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Make1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;BBB&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;What I am planning:&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Machines:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;TABLE&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Id&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Code&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Value&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Capacity&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;TP001&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;$200 000&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1500&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;FONT color="#FF0000"&gt;2&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;FM001&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;$450 000&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;5000&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Machine Details:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;TABLE border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Id&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Description&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;General description&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Make&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Model&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Tray packer&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Tray packer on line A2&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Make1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;AAA&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;FONT color="#FF0000"&gt;2&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Filling machine&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Grey filling machine on line A2 with automatic splicer&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Make1&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;BBB&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This forms part of a larger data model which is actually a snow flake schema. For the standard apps we only need the Machines table (reduced one), but I would like to make the Machine Details available to the end users as well when they need to do that kind of analysis.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Obviously this is a simplified example, but I would just like to get the experts' opinion on the principle of splitting a big table into two and how that will compare to having one large table. Maybe&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.qlik.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/22245"&gt;@swuehl&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;or&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.qlik.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/18624"&gt;@Gysbert_Wassenaar&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;have some ideas?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Mauritz&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 12:10:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Performance-impact-when-splitting-one-large-table-into-2-or-more/m-p/1564930#M41134</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mauritz_SA</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-04-05T12:10:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Performance impact when splitting one large table into 2 or more</title>
      <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Performance-impact-when-splitting-one-large-table-into-2-or-more/m-p/1565765#M41211</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Your ID field is not a primary key on your current table.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Splitting the tables and using ID as key field will link tray packer to both codes, for example.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is this what you want and correct?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 12:08:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Performance-impact-when-splitting-one-large-table-into-2-or-more/m-p/1565765#M41211</guid>
      <dc:creator>swuehl</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-04-05T12:08:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Performance impact when splitting one large table into 2 or more</title>
      <link>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Performance-impact-when-splitting-one-large-table-into-2-or-more/m-p/1565771#M41213</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Stefan&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am sorry. The ID column is actually unique. I changed it in &lt;FONT color="#FF0000"&gt;red&lt;/FONT&gt; in my original post. My question is actually what the effect would be of splitting a large table with for example 101 columns (each row with a unique IDs) into two tables. One with 21 columns (ID + 20 columns) and another with 81 columns (ID + 80 columns). Would loading and concatenating these two tables (as a user would do when they add tables using the data manager) be a lot more resource intensive than just loading the table with 101 columns?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Mauritz&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 12:15:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.qlik.com/t5/App-Development/Performance-impact-when-splitting-one-large-table-into-2-or-more/m-p/1565771#M41213</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mauritz_SA</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-04-05T12:15:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

