Walter Meester
HoogkarspelNetherlands
General information
Category:
Databases,Tables, Views, Indexing and SQL syntax
Nadya,
>If we want to take your route, we have to have two indexes. One with filter and another without for Rushmore. For 5mln. records table I don't think, it's good to add this index.
I don't think much would change. I guess that your 5mln table is some kind of statistical table that does not change much. If you PK field is only a few bytes (like an integer) I doubt you would ever see the performance difference. The best test, of course, is to test both situations.
B.T.W. did you test dropping the DELETED() indexes ? did you use an DELETED() index on this 5 mln table ? I strongly suggest you do drop this one. You could significanly speed up your app by dropping this three headed dragon.
>My idea looks interesting to me (though it would require some code changes, I believe), but I haven't proposed it yet between our team members. Curious, what other UTrs think about it.
It sure would work, but personally think that my solution is more clean. It is only a pitty that rushmore cannot use a filtered index. If this would be possible it could mean we would have a whole new mechanism to speed up queries. By my knowledge there is no other (R)DBMS which has such a optimizing mechanism.
Walter,
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only