× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



No. On both SQL statements, try using an Order By which corresponds to an
existing key (e.g. Order by fields1) and see if it makes any difference.

HTH

Paul Tuohy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Goovaerts" <pgoovaerts@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <java400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 8:07 PM
Subject: [WEB400] SQL problem.


> For our webapps we use sql statements to retrieve data from our iSeries.
I
> used to use the * to retrieve all fields for a record.  Thinking this
over,
> I realized that I regularly need only half of the fields in the database.
> Because our records has mostly between 20 and 50 fields, this could be a
> huge datatraffic overhead.
> Therefore I tested retrieval of data using SQL as follows:
> SQL1= 'select * from dbfile where field1=string'
> SQL2= 'select field1, field10, field 17 from dbfile where field1=string'
>
> surprisingly SQL2 is running slower than SQL1!  I think this has something
> to do with the creation of a new temporary table with only 3 fields by the
> SQL-engine, no?



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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.