On Apr 9, 12:36 am, Mladen Gogala <mgogala.SPAM_ME...._at_verizon.net>
wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:17:07 -0700, Charles Hooper wrote:
> > Mladen, thanks for prompting the test. I was curious about this also.
>
> > Charles Hooper
> > PC Support Specialist
> > K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.
>
> Charles, I did my own brief test, much less refined then yours, but
> nevertheless confirming your results. Here is the test, I believe that
> it speaks for itself:
>
> SQL> create table no_ind_tst(c1 number(10),c2 varchar2(5));
>
> Table created.
>
> SQL> create table ind_txt(c1 number(10) primary key,c2 varchar2(5));
>
> Table created.
>
> SQL> set timing on
> SQL> declare
> 2 ind number:=0;
> 3 begin
> 4 for i in 1..1000000
> 5 loop
> 6 insert into no_ind_tst values(i,'TEST');
> 7 end loop;
> 8 commit;
> 9 end;
> 10 /
>
> PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
>
> Elapsed: 00:01:06.07
> SQL> declare
> 2 ind number:=0;
> 3 begin
> 4 for i in 1..1000000
> 5 loop
> 6 insert into ind_txt values(i,'TEST');
> 7 end loop;
> 8 commit;
> 9 end;
> 10 /
>
> PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
>
> Elapsed: 00:01:46.50
> SQL>
>
> SQL> select 106.5/66.07 from dual;
>
> 106.5/66.07
> -----------
> 1.61192674
>
> Elapsed: 00:00:00.01
> SQL>
>
> That means that the run time of the insert into the table with the
> index is 61% longer then without the index. I believe that it can make
> a huge difference when loading huge data sets. Typically, something like
> inserting a million records into the database would not be done during
> the peak usage time. For an on-line update from an interactive
> application, the difference practically doesn't exist. For a nightly batch
> job, the difference may be huge.
>
> --http://www.mladen-gogala.com
Does this mean that you have disproven and are now disavowing your
statements made earlier in this thread?
Received on Mon Apr 09 2007 - 10:08:53 CDT
