>Rex,
>
>I'm not sure what the "best practices" is, but the issues I've noticed -- or made me wish I had split the databases -- are Recovery, Transactions and Replication and storage issues. Security, backup issues and collation would probably also apply. I'm sure there are more I'm not listing.
>
>For instance, I have some very large lookup tables which are better in a seperate database, since they do not need to be backed-up and when I want to update them I don't need or want any transaction logging. Setting up replication is probably a lot easier/safer is all replicated tables are in the same database. I think it's possible, but requires extra work, to have changes to multiple databases commit/fail in the same transaction (depending on version, I think. If some tables do not require the same backup or recovery model, a seperate database would be nice.
>
>I think I would keeping everything on one database unless there was a specific reason to keep some tables seperate.

Thanks Dan! I appreciate both your and Diane's responds.