× 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.


  • Subject: RE: SQL question
  • From: Walden Leverich <walden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 13:42:09 -0400

Strangely enough, I had the same problem this morning on V4R1 over
465,000 records. I actually killed the SQL after 15 minutes trying to
count(distinct field) from file. After reading your e-mail I tried the
select without the count and it ran almost instantly. 

Now, the original count would have resulted in close to 465,000 records
(a nearly unique field), I ran another count distinct that resulted in
only 3 records and it ran almost instantly. The only thing I can think
of is that the count is being performed in such a way that it is
optimized for a very low count value and takes FOREVER for a large
number of distinct values.

Try your SQL again counting distinct values for a very non-unique field
and post the results. If we see the same result I think we can report
this as a database bug.

-Walden

-----Original Message-----
From: Ravi [mailto:ravi@spacestar.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 5:31 PM
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject: SQL question


Howdy folks,

I have a file with about 1/2 million records on our development
machine (V4R2).

I ran a SQL query from ISQL:
-  Select distinct FIELD from FILE.
The query ran in about 2 minutes and gave me the result set with 
about 200,000 records. FIELD is not a key field.

I ran another query from ISQL over the same file/field:
- Select count(distinct FIELD) from FILE.
This query ran for over 10 minutes and returned the count.
Why would this query take so much longer than the first query? I ran the
test a few times when there was hardly any activity on the system and 
got the same results. The 2nd query takes atleast 5 times as long 
to complete. 
We have a similar table(few hundred thousand rcds)on an RS6000/Oracle
database. I ran similar queries over Oracle and there was no noticeable
difference in run times. I chose a non-indexed field.
What is so different about DB2/400 that would cause this? Just
curious...

Thanks

Ravi
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
+---
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:

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.