I had a thought the other day that might possibly be an improvement when databases get too big (as opposed to switching to SQL). Let's say 2,000 links is a rough cutoff for where performance drops (just a guess). Is there any reason the program couldn't be set up to cap individual databases at 2,000 (could be configurable to users' preferences) and then start on b,c,d,etc. databases?
So, instead of a link being #102, it might be a102 or b1345, or which ever subset it falls in. It might complicate the admin processes, but I can't think of any reason it would add difficulties for surfers. Seems like it would speed things up significantly.
Of course, at close to 1,300 links my installation has shown no signs of slowing down...
Dan
------------------
My links are at: http://www.dankaplan.com/runninglinks
So, instead of a link being #102, it might be a102 or b1345, or which ever subset it falls in. It might complicate the admin processes, but I can't think of any reason it would add difficulties for surfers. Seems like it would speed things up significantly.
Of course, at close to 1,300 links my installation has shown no signs of slowing down...
Dan
------------------
My links are at: http://www.dankaplan.com/runninglinks
Would this help large databases?