<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=NL-BE link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Sam,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I would opt for option 2, it’s the most flexible in the long run.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>We have one client with 65.000 nodes (25 fields each) and they are using views + exposed filters to search them, but it’s an internal site so only a couple of users, the site is still quick (results are shown in less than a second). If you expect a lot of users searching, you might better look into apacheSolr to increase the speed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Cheers<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Peter<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> development-bounces@drupal.org [mailto:development-bounces@drupal.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Sam Cohen<br><b>Sent:</b> donderdag 8 maart 2012 15:51<br><b>To:</b> development@drupal.org<br><b>Subject:</b> [development] 115,000 records -- nodes or custom<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Hi. <br><br>I was hoping for some advice. I recently took over an existing Drupal site for a nonprofit. <br><br>The client currently has a searchable database of a 115,000 records written in cold fusion in a separate database on a separate server. <br><br>They would like me to bring it into their Drupal 6 site or at least onto the same server. <br><br>I can do this in two ways:<br><br>1. As a custom module running off it's own db.<br><br>2. Or I can make it a content type and use Views for the interface. <br><br>My preference is to just use CCK/Views for maximum flexibility -- but I question whether or not it's wise to add a 115k records to the node and other tables and what type of impact this might have on overall site performance. (Any other downsides?)<br><br>Anyone have any advice/suggestions? If it was your project would you code it separately or use CCK/Views.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Sam<br clear=all><br><br>Sam Cohen, Principal<br><a href="http://new-media-solutions.com" target="_blank">New Media Solutions</a><br>Drupal Training & Services<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>