Comments inline.
--
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
Next Seminars
UK Sept, Nov
USA x 2 November
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html
Michael Burden wrote in message
<3bbc0756.0208080127.61a916cb_at_posting.google.com>...
>
>Everyone seems against local indexes but why.
>
This seems to be a rather extreme comment, given
that only two other people have participated in this
thread so far.
Just for the record - local indexes are a 'good thing'
and can be used very effectively. The arithmetic in
the example you give is, however, well-known as
defining a potential overhead.
>
>Now as the data is striped (or perhaps even better each partition is
>on a different disk) each of the 10 partitions can be run in parallel
>and so the actual response time could be quicker.
>
Your arithmetic is perfectly sound, but the response
time you are seeing is not as expected. Perhaps the
paragraph above is a hint at the real problem - are
you making this query run in parallel - if so, how many
ways, and is it possible that most of the excess 3-4
seconds is in the PX setup ?
Received on Fri Aug 09 2002 - 14:36:22 CDT
