>Why does the first SQL process 30 to 50 percent
>faster then the second SQL???? They are exactly
>the same.

>It would 'seem' that a single SQL would run faster
>then 2 SQls, wouldn't it? Especially when the
>first one is creating 2 storage spaces (cursors)
>and the second one is just creating one.
>
>Baffled Tom

not always - by seperating the SQL staements
the second SQL gets much less records for process ,thus works
faster
sometime the rushmore optimization can't decide correctly what
condition to execute first (or at least that what i found)

Arnon Gal-Oz