RE: Single record access really required (was RE: Views and Index es)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Pluta [mailto:joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 11:41 AM
> To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
> Subject: RE: Single record access really required (was RE: 
> Views and Indexes)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to step back for a moment now, Charles.  I think 
> we've beaten
> this pretty much to death and it's getting a teeny bit testy in this
> thread <grin>.

Agreed, I think we both get a little frustrated saying the same thing over
and over trying to explain what seems obvious to us.


> 
> It will be interesting to see your response to the subfile question
> because it's obvious you're very adept at the SQL side of things.  I'm
> impressed with your knowledge, and I'll try to incorporate all your
> suggestions in my test beds.  I sincerely hope you'll come over to the
> IAAI site and help us make meaningful comparisons.

I agree I think the subfile question is a very good one.  It should provide
a good basis for comparison. I'll post a reply to that one next.  I had
planned on signing up on the IAAI site soon, I'll try to get to it today.


> 
> Since I'm biased towards native I/O (in part because I'm nowhere near
> the expert you are in SQL), it's probable that my test 
> programs will not
> accurately reflect the strengths of a good SQL solution.

I don't know that I'd call myself an SQL expert.  Most of my 13+ years
experience is with native I/O.

But, I've also got a very recent Bachelors in CS so perhaps I've got a
little better understanding of the differences between how SQL should be
used vs. native I/O.


> 
> SQL vs. native I/O is going to be one of the first things the 
> IAAI will
> focus on for benchmarking, so I hope you'll take the opportunity to
> provide your expertise to properly represent SQL.

I'd be happy to do what I can.  I'm looking forward to finding out the
answers as much as you are.

> 
> Thanks a million for participating in this discussion.  It's certainly
> kept me on my toes!  And apologies for any brusqueness in my 
> tnoe; it's
> not intended.
> 
> Joe
> 

Apologies certainly accepted Joe.  Let me also apologize for any shortness
in my tone.

Charles