Re: Parallel Query Option

From: Alan D. Mills <alanm_at_uk.europe.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:44:31 -0000
Message-ID: <71rs0c$lq6$1@schbbs.mot.com>

I can only presume that on the system you are using that 5000 is simply not a large enough number of records to gain a benfit from it. You might well find you have memory to load the whole table. You might actually find that you're not gaining (overly much) from use of indexes as well.

--
Alan D. Mills

Roman Gelfand wrote in message <71qgcs$b2f$1_at_news.monmouth.com>...
>select /*+ PARALLEL(TBL1, 5) */ fld1, fld2, fld3, fld4 from tbl1 order by
>fld5, fld6;
>
>The table tbl1 contains 5000 rows. Can anyone tell me why I am not seeing
>performance improvement using parallel query option.
>
>Thanks for your help
>
>
>
Received on Thu Nov 05 1998 - 03:44:31 CST