G
George Potemkin
Guest
> I can see that, if one is doing a table scan regularly and there is a benefit in doing the table scan in the order of a particular index, that the performance would be better if the physical layout matched the logical one. I run the tests with idxfix. Its option 2 (scan indexes) works exactly as 4GL queries. Idxfix spent a few hours to scan one index and it needed approximately an /year/ (sic!) to scan another index of the same table. > But then, one rarely wants to be doing a table scan and, with a sufficiently modern version of Progress, using the table-scan option *instead* of any index is going to be preferred. The table-scan option can be very very slow as well if the records are fragmented. For example, 10% fragmented records can slow down the reading by 4000% .
Continue reading...
Continue reading...