Thanks for the answers !!! I will transform my question :
Why should/could the 2. solution be faster ?
"Brian E Dick" <bdick_at_cox.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:A4KJ9.3$0b.3259_at_news2.east.cox.net...
> Usually what kills option 2) is all the network traffic generated by
> retrieving intermediate results. Option 1) is done server-side and only
the
> final result is retrieved. Also, if the same table is joined more than
once,
> option 1) can use buffer cache more efficiently.
>
> <ctcgag_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:20021211011610.461$9S_at_newsreader.com...
> > "O.C." <clubmitglied_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Hi !
> > > What is faster in embedded SQL (in PRO-C):
> > > 1. One join of 5 large tables or
> > > 2. Splitt the this big SQL into 3-4 parts (and use the output of one
sql
> > > result
> > > as bind variables for the next sql statement)
> > >
> > > Indexes are in use.
> >
> > If the CBO is working well, number 1 should almost always be as fast
> > or faster. Otherwise, number 2 may be faster (by orders of magnitude).
> > Use #1. If that causes major problems, then (get a DBA to) tune the
> > query. If that fails (or you can't wait for an overworked DBA to get
> > around to helping you), try #2.
> >
> > Xho
> >
> > --
> > -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
> > Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
>
>
Received on Wed Dec 11 2002 - 15:10:53 CST
