and you had to post this three times...why ?
Marc wrote:
> I forgot to mention that I if I went with the 1 column approach, then I
> would have all 7 columns. 1 for the combined primary key and the other 6
> columns separated out. The six will be kept so I can search on 1 particular
> value if needed and display the values would be easier. The 1 primary key
> will be only used to lookup the particular row. I would probably have a
> trigger to perform the concatenation. I will never use substring on the
> primary key column. BTW, this is a dss system, no transactions. Speed is
> the issue.
>
> "Marc" <Marc-Weinstock_at_si.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:fe_49.195542$QD2.43806028_at_twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
>>Which is faster? 6 columns or 1 column with all keys. Speed is the only
>>issue.
>>col1 varchar(3) = aaa
>>col2 varchar(3) =bbb
>>col3 date =12/31/01
>>col4 number(1) =1
>>col5 number(1) = 0
>>col6 number(1) =1
>>
>>OR
>>
>>one_column varchar2(20) = "aaabbb12312001101"
>>
>>I have a few tables with the same primary key. For perfomce only. does
>>anyone know? MultiMillion row table.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Aug 10 2002 - 19:27:57 CDT
