Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: SQL vs. Oracle

Re: SQL vs. Oracle

From: Daniel <delj_at_flash.net>
Date: 27 Jan 2000 18:01:22 EST
Message-ID: <86qio2$re@journal.concentric.net>


Don't know 'bout you but most of my tables are very large. If it isn't using an index, it is doing a full table scan and beating my hard drives to death. In addition to beating my hard drives, it takes much longer to do a full table scan. Cost based optimization would try to use indexes, not rules based. First rows is good if you want to use hints. See my original example. The RDBMS should have used the index for an inner join. The index was there. It is faster and more cost efficient to use the index, why should I have to tell the most powerful and expensive RDBMS on the planet, to use an index that is available for the field referenced in my where clause. The only time using an index is bad, is when the index is corrupt. Can you think of an example to support your statement that sometimes it is bad?

Daniel
Austin, TX

> What makes using an index so good ?
>
> Sometimes using an index is good - sometimes its bad.
>
> If you want to use the index in almost all situations, make your
> optimiser rule based or first rows based.
>
> HTH
> --
> ===========================================
> Connor McDonald
> "These views mine, no-one elses etc etc"
> connor_mcdonald_at_yahoo.com
>
> "Some days you're the pigeon, and some days you're the statue."
Received on Thu Jan 27 2000 - 17:01:22 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US