--
"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message
news:3efd7bbe$0$16256$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> "Burton Peltier" <burttemp1REMOVE_THIS_at_bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:XR9La.3227$kx.673_at_fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
>
>
> > The comment about 1 of 5 tables being 50 million rows means nothing. The
MV
> > could be 100 rows after doing the joins and then it's just a 100 row
table
> > (in Oracle anyway) ? So, then 2 seconds would be realllly slow , IMHO.
> >
>
> Same in SQL Server. That's why comparing performance
> of a count of a parallel count of 70 million rows
> with the performance of a MV makes no sense whatsoever.
lol... I suppose we all know the answer to the OP's question...
> Will this not damage the Oracle perception of SQL-Server users?
Yep. Not too smart.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam
>
>
Received on Sat Jun 28 2003 - 11:19:51 CDT
