Re: Interactive SQL faster than Batch SQL? -- MIDRANGE-L

× 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: Interactive SQL faster than Batch SQL?
From: Greg Wenzloff <GWenzloff@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:01:28 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

subject: Re: Interactive SQL faster than Batch SQL?

Other people on your system must love you.   Running a 1 hour batch job
interactively and taking 10 minutes.  Unless your system is different than
mine, the rest of your users were wondering "what's going on, why is the
system so slow".

Keep it in batch

Greg

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Interactive SQL faster than Batch SQL? , Vernon Hamberg

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.