Different ways to go about storing data in an xml file..

15 Mar 2006 4:36 AM

ArmsTom

I have it set up like this right now:

<record id="1">
<record data1>
...
<record data9>
</record>

There are a couple hundred records and, often times, data overlaps.
So, record data in one record could contain the same information (or
part of the information) of the record data in another.

Would it be worthwhile to create individual xml files for each "record
data" type and these files would contain a reference to the record id?
Each time I need to get information about an id, I would have to open
and search through the xml files & check for a matching id.

Is opening, searching, assigning & closing multiple, smaller files more
effective than having one large file?

The file I have now will most likely never go over 500K, so I can't
imagine either way would be substantially more effective than the
other.

15 Mar 2006 6:07 AM

Cor Ligthert [MVP]

Tom,

I would not bother to much about it. As soon as the XML file becomes to
large. Than it is time to change it direct to a real database.

Just my opinion.

Cor

Show quoteHide quote

"ArmsTom" <mcullman***@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:1142397402.005528.115750@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>I have it set up like this right now:
>
> <record id="1">
> <record data1>
> ...
> <record data9>
> </record>
>
> There are a couple hundred records and, often times, data overlaps.
> So, record data in one record could contain the same information (or
> part of the information) of the record data in another.
>
> Would it be worthwhile to create individual xml files for each "record
> data" type and these files would contain a reference to the record id?
> Each time I need to get information about an id, I would have to open
> and search through the xml files & check for a matching id.
>
> Is opening, searching, assigning & closing multiple, smaller files more
> effective than having one large file?
>
> The file I have now will most likely never go over 500K, so I can't
> imagine either way would be substantially more effective than the
> other.
>

16 Mar 2006 1:33 AM

ArmsTom

Yeah, that's what I figured. Thanks for the two cents.