Dumb question on the second statement

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #139,217 by boxley 2/1/04 11:29:17 AM Reply	Dumb question on the second statement Isnt that statement a pile of mollases to run? Guarrantied to choke the DB to death? Nowadays I avoid SQL like the plague but back when I was programming the idea was striped queries. It always seemed faster to get a single result from an indexed table and use that as a param to get the next result. As compared to joins as noted below a 486 would just choke with all cpu and memory full. Did all that change with faster hardware? I still think it would be faster to scan 10 individual tables than scan 10 joined tables. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #139,220 by CRConrad 2/1/04 12:39:31 PM Reply	Then, in the Bronze Age, the Query Optimizer was invented...
Post #139,229 by admin 2/1/04 2:36:35 PM Reply	Which typically chokes with too many joins. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #139,243 by CRConrad 2/1/04 4:09:57 PM Reply	Yeah, well; whaddaya expect, from Bronze-Age technology? :-)
Post #139,315 by Simon_Jester 2/2/04 11:41:39 AM Reply	Depends on the optimizer... run a show command and you'll see what it's up to. Joins aren't usually the problem - table scans are. Joins are simple (particularly when the indexes are properly used), because with a good optimizer, the indexes are joined before the entire row is gotten.

New Question - what does this (oracle) syntax mean? - (tuberculosis) - (18) - Jan. 31, 2004, 10:03:21 PM EST

Left join. - (admin) - (17) - Jan. 31, 2004, 10:27:02 PM EST

Oy - (tuberculosis) - (16) - Feb. 1, 2004, 12:43:45 AM EST

Ick. -NT - (admin) - (7) - Feb. 1, 2004, 12:48:54 AM EST

Way - (tuberculosis) - (6) - Feb. 1, 2004, 12:56:26 AM EST

Looks to me like it was generated from icky tools. - (FuManChu) - (2) - Feb. 1, 2004, 01:23:50 AM EST

Naah; we manually write shit like that all the time. :-( -NT - (CRConrad) - (1) - Feb. 1, 2004, 07:42:34 AM EST

Yeah - a tool would use consistent capitalization -NT - (tuberculosis) - Feb. 1, 2004, 10:25:24 AM EST

Just start breaking it down. - (admin) - (2) - Feb. 1, 2004, 10:38:15 AM EST

That's the plan - (tuberculosis) - (1) - Feb. 1, 2004, 10:53:22 AM EST

Yeah, 'zackly, we use views like that all the time. :-( -NT - (CRConrad) - Feb. 1, 2004, 10:57:25 AM EST

Relax; you'll get the hang of it pretty quickly. - (CRConrad) - (1) - Feb. 1, 2004, 10:56:19 AM EST

I'm saving those for dessert - (tuberculosis) - Feb. 1, 2004, 05:02:11 PM EST

Dumb question on the second statement - (boxley) - (4) - Feb. 1, 2004, 11:29:17 AM EST

Then, in the Bronze Age, the Query Optimizer was invented... -NT - (CRConrad) - (2) - Feb. 1, 2004, 12:39:31 PM EST

Which typically chokes with too many joins. -NT - (admin) - (1) - Feb. 1, 2004, 02:36:35 PM EST

Yeah, well; whaddaya expect, from Bronze-Age technology? :-) -NT - (CRConrad) - Feb. 1, 2004, 04:09:57 PM EST

Depends on the optimizer... - (Simon_Jester) - Feb. 2, 2004, 11:41:39 AM EST

Left join in the new SQL standard syntax - (Simon_Jester) - Feb. 2, 2004, 11:44:48 AM EST

iwethey.org

What was that "kneejerk" emoticon again?
297 ms