RE: LOL: 122 one column indexes on 122 column table

Well, less than desirable in my case was 0.5 seconds average for insert - man can type a word in that time. This is on good servers and good storage. Bumping the block cache tenfold has helped but storage is storage: people forget that storage is either a mechanical device (!) - yes, XXI century computers are still based on mechanics or flash which one might say is quantum mechanics ;)

/Laimis N

From: Sandra Becker [mailto:sbecker6925_at_gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 10:00 PM To: Laimutis Nedzinskas
Cc: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Re: LOL: 122 one column indexes on 122 column table

Laimis,
I've seen worse. It was a 3rd-party app. 256 column table had over 2,500 indexes. After monitoring for a month, we discovered that only a dozen of the indexes were ever used. Vendor wouldn't allow us to remove the unused indexes. Considering we had heavy inserts/updates on that table, performance was less than desirable. Sandy

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Laimutis Nedzinskas <laimutis.nedzinskas_at_statoilfuelretail.com<mailto:laimutis.nedzinskas_at_statoilfuelretail.com>> wrote: Hi..

I thought I’d seen all.
Not even close:

122 column table.
122 one-column indexes on EACH column.
(BLOBs I don’t count, let them be)

That’s…rude.

/Laimis N

--
Sandy B.

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l