Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: A better SQL implementation?

Re: A better SQL implementation?

From: Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 17 Jun 2006 07:11:57 -0700
Message-ID: <1150553517.107354.206330@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>


Thank you for taking the time...I will bring this information to the technology creator...

Carl Federl wrote:
> >From "3.3 Horror scenario 1", Dr. Harry McKame indicates that under a
> b-tree implimitation, 2,000 disk access would be required for this SQL:
>
> select * from employees where job = 'programmer' and dept =
> 'dept1'
> and we assume that there are only 10 rows in the result.
>
> This is incorrect, as the actual number of IO is 21 using SQL Server.
> The IO ratio is then 21/12 or 175% not 2 orders of magnitude.
>
> Dr McKame is also incorrect on the data range values when he states
> "Assume now 1,000,000 employees in the table, among them 1,000
> programmers. Assume also 1,000 different departments in this company
> (for symmetry). "
>
> With this senario, the combination of Job and Department would be
> unique. As an Alternative, have 1,000 different jobs, 100 departments
> and each department has each of the 1,000 jobs ten times.
>
> Finally, Dr McKame states that a set system will do one access for each
> of the indicies. Since the undelying physical implimitation model has
> not been provided, it is not possible to validate this statements.
>
> However, assumming that a fixed storage unit size of 8K is used and the
> record id is 8 bytes, I have recalculated the number of disk storage
> units and then the disk I/O:
> For each of the 1000 JobId, there would 1,000 employees, the set index
> would then have a size of 1000 * 8 bytes, or about 8K, which is 1
> storage unit.
> For each of the 100 DeptIds, there would be 10,000 employees, the set
> index would then have a size of about 80K, which is 10 storage unit.
>
> Based on one I/O for each storage unit, the set based index I/O would
> be 21 based on:
> 1. 1 I/O to read the JobId index entry
> 2. 10 I/O to read the DeptId index entry
> 3. 10 I/O to get the data rows
>
> This totals 21 I/O for the set based index which is exactly equal to
> the 21 I/O B-Tree index solution used by SQL Server.
>
> The SQL Server execution plan is:
>
> 1. Scan the JobId index to get the employee rowids
> 2. Scan the DeptId index to get the employee rowids
> 3. Merge join the two sets of employee rowids
> 4. Get the data for the resulting employee rowid
>
> Here is the SQL to reproduce:
> Table master.dbo.sequences constains 32768 rows with seq having values
> from 0 to 32767. For how to populate this tables see
> http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2516
>
> create table Employees
> (EmployeeId integer not null identity(1,1)
> ,JobId integer not null
> ,DeptId integer not null
> , constraint Employees_P Primary key clustered (EmployeeId) WITH
> FILLFACTOR = 100
> )
> Insert into Employees
> (JobId, DeptId)
> select Jobs.seq, Depts.seq
> from master.dbo.sequences Jobs
> cross join
> master.dbo.sequences Depts
> cross join
> master.dbo.sequences EDJ
> where Jobs.seq between 1 and 1000
> and Depts.seq between 1 and 100
> and EDJ.seq between 1 and 10
> go
> create index Employees_X_JobId on Employees (JobId )
> go
> create index Employees_X_DeptId on Employees (DeptId )
> go
> set statistics io on
> go
> select *
> from Employees
> where JobId = 345
> and DeptId = 67
> go
> set statistics io off
> go
> set showplan_text on
> go
> select *
> from Employees
> where JobId = 345
> and DeptId = 67
> go
Received on Sat Jun 17 2006 - 09:11:57 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US