Personally, I don't see how two DBs improves things. In my experience, nodes are often "configuration" as well as "content". Trying to draw that line somewhere is a mistake, IMHO. You might draw the line where it makes sense for your sites, but not someone elses. As you point out, the list is highly debatable. I think it's undecidable. -Dave On Saturday 09 August 2008, Zohar Stolar wrote:
As yhager proposed, having two DBs instead of one, may ease things a lot. One DB will hold content: nodes, revisions, files, users... The second DB will hold configuration: views, cck structure, modules, variables... (this list is highly debatable).
This will allow for two-ways updating - content is pulled down, while configuration can be easily pushed up.