Re: Index performance

Naren Chintala <naren_at_mink.att.com> wrote:

>> We are having performance trouble with a batch process and we've
>> narrowed it down to index performance.
>>
>> We have created a brand new tablespace on a new drive. Our
>> testing indicates a 1000 record insert that takes 6 second
>> non-indexed, takes 55 seconds or more when indexed in any of a
>> variety of ways.

>Insert into an indexed table will take more time than an
>non-indexed table. This is obvious because each insert
>has to update the index also.

Isn't the drop from 6 seconds to 55 seconds a bit excessive though? I didn't think indexes slowed updates *that* much?

Niall Received on Sun Aug 18 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST