Path: news.easynews.com!easynews!hub1.nntpserver.com!xmission!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: jraustin1@hotmail.com (James) Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: Indexing techniques for hierarchies Date: 24 Dec 2001 19:19:11 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <%3sU7.5938$XC5.7898@www.newsranger.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.172.146.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1009250351 22994 127.0.0.1 (25 Dec 2001 03:19:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Dec 2001 03:19:11 GMT Xref: easynews comp.databases.theory:19318 X-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 20:19:12 MST (news.easynews.com) > > 1. Create 1,000 tables (ie T1, T2, ...) > > 2. Each record has five fields: > > (pk int32, p2 float64, p3 bool, p4 text255, p5 dateTime) > > (Would need additional field fk start from T2 to relate records) > > 3. Create one record in each table. > > If they all have the same 'fields', why exactly would you not use a single > table with 1000 rows?? Although step 2 indicates the same field names in each table, they represent different fields. Think of it as local variables in different functions. Naming the fields the same in each table or even having the same number of fields in each table was an arbitrary decision to make the benchmark easier to create.