× 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.



At 23:57 4/16/2004, Tom Liotta wrote:
The following SQL statement runs in maybe 25 seconds in iSQL (V5R2, of course, current PTFs) but a batch run as embedded SQL it takes a couple hours:

<snip>


Wow, that's almost as ugly as some of my queries. From what I understand, the query optimizer (wouldn't want to be in charge of that one) considers batch vs active as one of the variables when coming up with the access plan. In my experience, it's always been exactly the opposite. Interactive always seems to take much longer than batch. Maybe because of the interactive CPW penalty I suppose. I'd guess IBM would be interested in examining what's happening on your system. If you have a support contract, call them. The SQL guys are really quite good.


Pete Hall pbhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.pbhall.us/


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
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.