The site has a lot of small units (phones, partners, address, working time, social. links, etc.) which are edited separately and stored in the database also as separate entries.
That is, there is a table 'singl' with fields single: (int 100), content: (varchar 500) these small units about 50.
And there is a table 'pages' with fields pages: (int, 100), content: (varchar 3000) where the content is stored long text of the page. These pages is about 30.
It turns out when we open the page of the site, we make a selection on two tables, the fields 'articul' and 'pages'.
The question is, does it make sense to divide into 2 tables, can all be stored in one?
Which option is more correct do you think?
immanuel.Simonis39 answered on April 19th 20 at 12:09
Yes you can merge 2 tables into one.
This is called denormalization.
All the ways - of their right. But the development of this idea I do not have the message format. Roughly speaking. If your data will not be updated. And there will be update anomalies. Then quietly keep everything in 1 table.
lucile10 answered on April 19th 20 at 12:11
If the project is small ("disposable"), will not experience much inconvenience when storing in one table. But if you start to develop on a denormalized solution can later regret.
If approached abstractly to keep one properly.