![]() | ![]() Products ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Home » Technical Support » DBISAM Technical Support » Support Forums » DBISAM Enhancement Requests and Suggestions » View Thread |
Messages 1 to 4 of 4 total |
![]() |
Mon, Jan 4 2010 8:42 AM | Permanent Link |
Roy Lambert NLH Associates ![]() | Tim
I appreciate this may be impossible but if it can be done I'd love it. A lot of times I have several ways to get the same result eg SELECT COUNT(*) FROM Emails WHERE _MsgID = '<RACKFORC-J1M2FQe268f2cc5e6d4df7a06b7f7cc3d85090@rackforc-j1m2fq>' AND _InOutInd ='«M' and SELECT COUNT(*) FROM Emails WHERE _MsgID = '<RACKFORC-J1M2FQe268f2cc5e6d4df7a06b7f7cc3d85090@rackforc-j1m2fq>' AND NOT _fkMailBoxes IN (-2,-3,-4,-7) both give the same result and both seem to be equivalent in terms of execution "_MsgID" = '<RACKFORC-J1M2FQe268f2cc5e6d4df7a06b7f7cc3d85090@rackforc-j1m2fq>' [Index scan (EMails.MessageID):, 1 keys, 4096 bytes estimated cost] AND "_InOutInd" = '«M' [Row scan (EMails): 1 rows, 656 bytes estimated cost] "_MsgID" = '<RACKFORC-J1M2FQe268f2cc5e6d4df7a06b7f7cc3d85090@rackforc-j1m2fq>' [Index scan (EMails.MessageID):, 1 keys, 4096 bytes estimated cost] AND "_fkMailBoxes" NOT IN (- 2, - 3, - 4, - 7) [Row scan (EMails): 1 rows, 656 bytes estimated cost] If I'm just running once or twice a day who cares which is best but as in this case it will be run hundreds or thousands of times a day I'd like to be able to pick the genuinely most efficient one. Is there an indicator you can build in or is it simply add the estimated bytes and low number wins? Roy Lambert |
Mon, Jan 4 2010 11:25 AM | Permanent Link |
Tim Young [Elevate Software] Elevate Software, Inc. ![]() | Roy,
<< If I'm just running once or twice a day who cares which is best but as in this case it will be run hundreds or thousands of times a day I'd like to be able to pick the genuinely most efficient one. Is there an indicator you can build in or is it simply add the estimated bytes and low number wins? >> When you say "geniunely", what do you mean ? Are the execution timings that much different between the two ? The execution plans indicate that they are virtually identical in terms of execution I/O. -- Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
Mon, Jan 4 2010 12:04 PM | Permanent Link |
Roy Lambert NLH Associates ![]() | Tim
>When you say "geniunely", what do you mean ? Are the execution timings that >much different between the two ? The execution plans indicate that they are >virtually identical in terms of execution I/O. That's the problem. When you add in the various types of buffering and caching its difficult to spot the very minor differences. The dramatic ones where it goes from several minutes to less than a second I can just about decide which to use but when they're both running sub-second its pretty much impossible. I have been using the sum of the bytes to give me an idea but I was hoping there was a better way. As I said its only when I know its going to get run lots where even a miniscule difference adds up over the day that I'm bothered Roy Lambert |
Tue, Jan 5 2010 5:26 PM | Permanent Link |
Tim Young [Elevate Software] Elevate Software, Inc. ![]() | Roy,
<< I have been using the sum of the bytes to give me an idea but I was hoping there was a better way. >> That's the best method when the times are so small as to be insignificant. Two queries that have the same estimated I/O costs, will most likely execute in about the same time, every time. -- Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
This web page was last updated on Wednesday, August 14, 2024 at 03:12 PM | Privacy Policy![]() © 2024 Elevate Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved Questions or comments ? ![]() |