For Each Without Index
- Thread starter moahrs
- Start date
TomBascom
Curmudgeon
Except for single record FINDs using a RECID ir ROWID the 4GL always uses an index. Even when none is specified the compiler will pick one for you. Usually it does a pretty good job.
Only the SQL-92 engine supports no-index table scans. That feature was introduced, for SQL-92 only, 5 years ago. The db team brags about it every time they get a chance to put up a slide showing what they have done lately.
The 4GL development team has not yet seen fit to support it.
Complain to your sales rep and anyone else whose neck you can reach. Let them know that this is important to you.
Only the SQL-92 engine supports no-index table scans. That feature was introduced, for SQL-92 only, 5 years ago. The db team brags about it every time they get a chance to put up a slide showing what they have done lately.
The 4GL development team has not yet seen fit to support it.
Complain to your sales rep and anyone else whose neck you can reach. Let them know that this is important to you.
TomBascom
Curmudgeon
You might also want to explain a bit about what you are trying to do.
Accessing data in "the order it was saved to the table" could mean several things. Some of which are not necessarily best served by a no-index table scan. For instance, if you really and truly mean that you want the data in creation date-time order then you need a field which holds that time stamp (or a simple sequence number) and you need an index which traverses it because the order on disk has absolutely nothing to do with creation date & time -- they might accidentally coincide but that will only fool you into thinking that it "works".
Accessing data in "the order it was saved to the table" could mean several things. Some of which are not necessarily best served by a no-index table scan. For instance, if you really and truly mean that you want the data in creation date-time order then you need a field which holds that time stamp (or a simple sequence number) and you need an index which traverses it because the order on disk has absolutely nothing to do with creation date & time -- they might accidentally coincide but that will only fool you into thinking that it "works".