From: "Paul Brewer" Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server References: <73e20c6c.0307011852.520e3a3e@posting.google.com> <3F033B89.B6995D40@remove_spam.peasland.com> <3F098553.7BB05EA3@remove_spam.peasland.com> Subject: Re: Accessing 2 tables with 1 name Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:19:53 +0100 Lines: 21 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-0-83.lond-a-2.access.uk.tiscali.com Message-ID: <3f09deef_1@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com> X-Trace: 7 Jul 2003 21:58:23 +0100, ppp-0-83.lond-a-2.access.uk.tiscali.com Path: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com!ppp-0-83.lond-a-2.access.uk.tiscali.com Xref: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com comp.databases.oracle.server:237094 "Brian Peasland" wrote in message news:3F098553.7BB05EA3@remove_spam.peasland.com... > We had one major problem, which was a large join took forever to > complete. A query that the developers originally designed needed data > from this join. We wanted to precompute the join and store the results > in a table and have the application query from this table. This table > gets "refreshed" once a day. Missing a days worth of data, between > refreshes, was not a problem for us. And this took our query from hours > down to seconds. So our application end users were happy. > Again I agree with Brian. Back in the mid-80's we were using what we then called 'preaggregated redundant tables' to speed query execution, on a Wang mini, using the proprietory RDBMS. Much less is new than most think Regards, Paul