Re: Performance: Dates vs Varchar2

From: Tom Barnes <barnest_at_san.rr.com>
Date: 14 Feb 2002 08:00:42 -0800
Message-ID: <ae6b6116.0202140800.5cafe76b@posting.google.com>

> Index compression works only with concatenated indexes (ie indexes
> consisting of multiple columns)
> So the second scenario won't use an index, unless you have a function
> based index on it.

Why wouldn't it use an index? It's just a simple VARCHAR2(10) column with a normal index on and in the where-clause I'm comparing it with a VARCHAR2(10) string.

> Compared to storing the column as a date this is
> putting the horse behind the cart (Dutch proverb)

There are many ways to store the data but in this case I'm not interested in which one is more elegant, space efficient, etc. I'm just wondering which one would be fastest, A or B (me and my co-worker have been disagreeing on this for months).

Thanks Received on Thu Feb 14 2002 - 10:00:42 CST