>>Hi Bruce,
>>
>>While he didn't say it, I read Doug's to mean 'horribly fragmented'
within the table, negating the COPY TO with ORDER set that was intended to optimize it in the first place.
>
>I'm not sure what that means, "within the table"?
Bruce,
Yes, (sorry() I did mean internal fragmentation.
When records are recycled by reusing older records
at some point the table will have records placed within it
physically that has such a contrarian relationship to how an optimal (for that system) table ordering should be
logically. The resulting impact on performance can be enough to warrant an internal reordering of the physical data; ie. the PCK or COPY TO maintenance scenario.
Having said that, if all a table does is receive a linear stream of data I'd think there's little use for this.
So the best technical answer
"depends". *g*
Best,
Best,
DD
A man is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep for that which he cannot lose.
Everything I don't understand must be easy!
The difficulty of any task is measured by the capacity of the agent performing the work.
