Re: Defragmenting table

Thanks Dave,
I tried using the primary keys with little or no improvement. The statistic were done this morning, (UK time). This morning I dumped the table and recreated it so everything should be pretty new, excluding the data itself. That why I think I should need to recreate the table but I don't know how to make sure that, what ever the problem is, it does not get 'imported' back in the table.
I also checked if the table is fragmented but this doesn't appear to be a problem.
Thanks again.

In article <ss409ukqdc649_at_corp.supernews.com>,   "Dave A" <dave_and_vanna_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure what the hang up is, but try doing a count(*) with a hint to
 use
> the primary key index. Primary Keys cannot be null so the count
 should be
> accurate and you will have to read only the index rather than the
 table.
>
> I would think your count(*) would use the index anyway, but perhaps
 the
> statistics are old?
>
> Dave A
>
> "FGuelfucci" <fguelfucci_at_goalgroup.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8psl8q$3eq$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Hi there,
> > I hope that someone could help me with a little problem.
> > I often have to do a query on a table, +/-30000 rows, but for some
> > reason the system takes between 10 to 40 secs to return from the
 select
> > count(*), statement, (other tables are 5 times the size and 3 times
> > faster).
> > There are 2 indexes and 2 primary keys. The size of the table would
> > indicate that it should be very quick.
> > For the purpose of the application I have to do a select count(*)
 often
> > as the exact number of rows varies from time to time, does any one
 know
> > a better way of doing it or a SQL statement that would defrag the
 table.
> > Any help would be great, (and would make me look great at work).
> > Thanks for all the help you can give.
> > Florent.
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Fri Sep 15 2000 - 09:00:53 CDT