RE: SQL vs. traditional I/O?

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Joe Pluta
> 
> Excellent, Erich!  This is the kind of thing I like to see!  It indeed
> lowers the time for the SQL 30%, down to seven seconds.  But that's
> still much slower than the native I/O.

Also, while I really appreciate the input (SELECT ...INTO was a great
help), I'm not going to keep running tests and posting and reposting the
results here.  Especially since m machine may not reflect your
environment.  That's what the new website is for: to make standardized
test routines that people can run on their machines and report the
results.

I just ran the test to check into the statement that SQL was "as fast or
faster" than native I/O and make sure we still need tests at all.  Hey,
if SQL beat native I/O across the board, performance tests wouldn't
really be important.  But since there is a difference, it's important to
know just where SQL fares better and where native I/O excels.

Joe