G
gus
Guest
imo, it is a largely useless metric. more useful to know would be "if i use index x, how well does its ordering match the physical storage ordering and how many i/o's will that require?" regards, gus (gus@progress.com) "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." -- Brian Kernighan > On Nov 20, 2015, at 4:18 AM, George Potemkin wrote: > > Update from Progress Community [https://community.progress.com/] > > George Potemkin [https://community.progress.com/members/georgep12] > > I run some tests with the scatter factor: > Progress V10.2B > d "Table Area":7,8;8 . > > I created 15 records. They used 2 blocks: first one stores 7 records + template record, second block stores 8 records. > Scatter factor was 1.0. > > Then I deleted a half of the records (if tbl.i mod 2 eq 0 then delete tbl). > Scatter factor changed to 1.3. Note that EXP(10, 0.3) = 2. In other words, the scatter factor is still 1 + LOG(Ration, 10). > The record size does not matter. I tried the mean rec size 19 bytes as well as 471 bytes. Also I removed the recid holders, so two blocks stored only 4 + 1 records and 4 records. > > Then I deleted all records except one in each block (if tbl.i ne 1 and tbl.i ne 9 then delete tbl). > Scatter factor was not changed, it's still equal 1.3. > The record size does not matter again. > > It looks like the scatter factor does not work as a block packing factor. > > Regards, > George > > View online [https://community.progress.com/community_groups/openedge_rdbms/f/18/p/21437/75541#75541] > > You received this notification because you subscribed to the forum. To unsubscribe from only this thread, go here [https://community.progress.com/community_groups/openedge_rdbms/f/18/t/21437/mute]. > > Flag [https://community.progress.com/community_groups/openedge_rdbms/f/18/p/21437/75541?AbuseContentId=42aa262e-7d3e-40fb-be8e-0181eab2d7ec&AbuseContentTypeId=f586769b-0822-468a-b7f3-a94d480ed9b0&AbuseFlag=true] this post as spam/abuse.
Continue reading...
Continue reading...