Re: Fixed- vs. Variable-width tables

Yes, I should have qualified the history of the problem... It was, in fact, something we did w/ Sybase, not Oracle... I just wasn't sure if it was Sybase-specific or not.

Thanks, Chad

"Thomas Kyte" <tkyte_at_oracle.com> wrote in message news:a72l2c016bb_at_drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <evuk8.22251$Vx1.1914401_at_newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Chad
> says...
> >
> >Hello -
> >
> >A few years back I remember that it was very important to make sure that
you
> >defined tables w/ just fixed width columns (placing variable-width
columns
> >in a separate table), making it much faster to update the one table since
it
> >could be done in-place, and that fixed-width tables are generally more
> >efficient. Now, the question is, how true is that statement nowadays,
have
> >new algorithms made that performance tweak unnecessary?
> >
> >Assuming that I will query on the fixed-width table the most, should I go
to
> >the trouble of separating out the two tables?
> >
> >Thanks in Advance, Chad
> >
> >
>
> believe you might mean SQLServer (sybase and later MS). There an update
was
> almost always processed as a DELETE/INSERT causing the row to "move". In
place
> updates were rare.
>
> --
> Thomas Kyte (tkyte@us.oracle.com) http://asktom.oracle.com/
> Expert one on one Oracle, programming techniques and solutions for Oracle.
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1861004826/
> Opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Oracle Corp
>
>
Received on Mon Mar 18 2002 - 15:22:03 CST