Re: 2 Oracle doubts

Connor McDonald wrote:

> <snipped>
>
> Exactly...
>
> My mantra is 'if the definition of a "small table" is one that is so
> small that it does not require to be indexed to query a one of its rows,
> then there is no such thing as a small table"
>
> :-)
>
> --
> =========================
> Connor McDonald
> http://www.oracledba.co.uk
>
> "Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue"

The definition of a small table in this context should be something like this:

When the cost of reading index blocks followed by table blocks is greater than the cost of reading the table blocks alone.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)