RE: Index question
- From: Jared.Still@xxxxxxxxxxx
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:29:45 -0700
> Thanks for your help on this. The additional column is a varchar2(32)
data
> type. I ran some tests too see the effect on the number of blocks
retrieved
> to satisfy a query. The single column required 360 blocks, whereas the
> concatenated column required 369 blocks. Not much difference, but I
guess
> it all depends on the performance requirement of the application.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rick Stephenson
>
I wouldn't think that a 2.5% decrease in the number of index blocks
read would justify another index. The 2.5% difference translates to
a smaller overall change in response time, particurlary if the query
must also read table blocks. ie. the index alone cannot satisfy
the query.
Jared
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
