|
Rick > You might try rearranging the order of your where clause, > if any. I have seen that change the access paths used by > the optimizer. I'd like to try that (see my last post in a different thread ;) > IIRC you should also have a message in the job log that will > tell why existing logicals were omitted. That might help also. > As I'm writing this a light bulb is going off telling me > that that the optimizer ignores join logicals. I can't > remember where I saw that though. Has anyone else seen > anything about the optimizer and join logicals? The optimizer considered it and rejected it for reason 4 - The cost to use this access path, as determined by the optimizer, was higher than the cost associated with the chosen access method. Then, it built a path over the primary file, using mostly my select/omit fields as keys, but the odd thing is that it built it for reason 1 - Perform specified ordering/grouping criteria. the ordering was done in the join! oh well, i'll keep trying rick
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.