Re: Number of Columns in a Table & SQL Performance ?
- From: Greg Rahn <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: john.kanagaraj@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:44:03 -0700
There is less "overhead" in accessing columns at the top/left of the
table than further down. This is because once the row is found in the
block, the row piece has to be walked to project the required columns.
If those columns are at the top/left they are at the beginning of the
row piece it takes less CPU/function calls to get to those versus the
ones that are at the bottom/right or end of the row piece.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:02 PM, John Kanagaraj
<john.kanagaraj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> HOWEVER: If there are 400 columns, I would bet that most rows will not
> fit in one block and hence you will see a lot more 'db file sequential
> read' than normally required. As well, I remember that Steve Adams (or
> someone long ago) mentioning that there is an additional cost for
> accessing a column "further down the list" - sorry don't have that
> link.
--
Regards,
Greg Rahn
http://structureddata.org
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
