IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Queries are somewhat unpredictable
We're making a general/purpose tool here.

I don't see how ratio is faster with single table - it's simple "select count() from" versus "select count() from ... where ...". Also, I thought that updating 2 smaller tables is faster than updating 1 large one.

As to "polls" and not "polled data"... Could you elaborate on that? Not sure I understand.

The only query that is faster on single table, IMHO, is the one that has to merge the tables. Actually, I wonder.. How the hell do I write a query that merges them, while retaining, for each record, the origin of it? IOW, how do I get from 2 tables to one with a flag? I guess my lack of SQL experience is showing.

--

We have only 2 things to worry about: That
things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
New It's purely a design decision IMO--look to the future.
> I don't see how ratio is faster with single table
> - it's simple "select count() from" versus
> "select count() from ... where ...".

The "where" is another decision that needs to be made. Depends on the DB if that's faster or not for your dataset.

> Also, I thought that updating 2 smaller tables
> is faster than updating 1 large one.

Again, depends on the size of the tables and the DB. I'm not enough of an Oracle expert to answer that for your dataset. I would have thought opening and updating a single row would be faster than 2 any day...but I'm not a low-level DB expert. I'd test each one and see which is faster.

> As to "polls" and not "polled data"...
> Could you elaborate on that? Not sure I understand.

I'm just saying that often an object seems redundant only because of the label we put on it. If you look at your dataset as a list of "successful poll values", then the timeouts look out of place. But if you look at it as a list of "poll results (successful or not)", then the timeouts attain equal "status" with the other data. If you were going to normalize this table the "idealized" way, you'd have a master index of timestamps in one, values in a second, and timeouts in a third. That's true normalization: sharing what's similar and pulling out what's different. Yuck. Two tables is, to me, just as unappealing as three when you're talking about one bit of data, unless you see some point in the future where you'd add additional data regarding the duration or cause of the timeout.

The only query that is faster on single table, IMHO, is the one that has to merge the tables. Actually, I wonder.. How the hell do I write a query that merges them, while retaining, for each record, the origin of it? IOW, how do I get from 2 tables to one with a flag? I guess my lack of SQL experience is showing.


Use a UNION query. That will get ugly for the same reasons it's ugly using two tables instead of three.

MSAccess example (hoping it's standard):
SELECT Timestamp, Name, Value, False AS IsTimeout FROM Polls
UNION
SELECT Timestamp, Null AS Name, Null AS Value, True AS Timeout FROM Timeouts

Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
New I see. Thank you.
Your example with 3 tables seems to do it for me. Ouch indeed.
--

We have only 2 things to worry about: That
things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
     Extra flag or an additional table? - (Arkadiy) - (7)
         I'd use a flag. - (tseliot) - (3)
             Queries are somewhat unpredictable - (Arkadiy) - (2)
                 It's purely a design decision IMO--look to the future. - (tseliot) - (1)
                     I see. Thank you. - (Arkadiy)
         Two or Three Extra columns, more than a flag... - (gdaustin) - (1)
             See? Told ya someone would want more data. :D -NT - (tseliot)
         I vote flag field - (tablizer)

Just playing with your LRPD addiction...
61 ms