I've read the following phrase on a website:

Instead of adding new fields to a content type, adding existing fields is a better option to reduce the system’s complexity and to improve scalability.

And some doubts arise.

In the system we are developing, we have the possibility to reuse a field across 3 or 4 content types but instead of improving scalability as the quoted phrase says, I'm afraid it will diminish it, because the field's table would faster become a bottleneck (at least that's my reasoning in this case, as all values of that field together, would be a couple millions per year and that would make the table too big). Do you agree  ?

How many rows would be a sensible maximum to aim for when architecting  ? That way we could decide when to reuse fields and when to create new ones (even though the chance to reuse is there).

Thanks

I've read the following phrase on a website:

Instead of adding new fields to a content type, adding existing fields is a better option to reduce the system’s complexity and to improve scalability.

And some doubts arise.

In the system we are developing, we have the possibility to reuse a field across 3 or 4 content types but instead of improving scalability as the quoted phrase says, I'm afraid it will diminish it, because the field's table would faster become a bottleneck (at least that's my reasoning in this case, as all values of that field together, would be a couple millions per year and that would make the table too big). Do you agree?

How many rows would be a sensible maximum to aim for when architecting? That way we could decide when to reuse fields and when to create new ones (even though the chance to reuse is there).

I've read the following phrase on a website:

Instead of adding new fields to a content type, adding existing fields is a better option to reduce the system’s complexity and to improve scalability.

And some doubts arise.

In the system we are developing, we have the possibility to reuse a field across 3 or 4 content types but instead of improving scalability as the quoted phrase says, I'm afraid it will diminish it, because the field's table would faster become a bottleneck (at least that's my reasoning in this case, as all values of that field together, would be a couple millions per year and that would make the table too big). Do you agree ?

How many rows would be a sensible maximum to aim for when architecting ?

Thanks

I've read the following phrase on a website:

Instead of adding new fields to a content type, adding existing fields is a better option to reduce the system’s complexity and to improve scalability.

And some doubts arise.

In the system we are developing, we have the possibility to reuse a field across 3 or 4 content types but instead of improving scalability as the quoted phrase says, I'm afraid it will diminish it, because the field's table would faster become a bottleneck (at least that's my reasoning in this case, as all values of that field together, would be a couple millions per year and that would make the table too big). Do you agree ?

How many rows would be a sensible maximum to aim for when architecting ? That way we could decide when to reuse fields and when to create new ones (even though the chance to reuse is there).

Thanks