Re: SQL Date Math

["Michael Ryan" <michaelrtr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes...going from date to numeric. I just named it backwards to throw
off the opposition. :)

Sure...I'll give it a go first thing in the morning, and I'll post my
results back here. I'll also create an index over the numeric field
and see how that helps things.

On Nov 13, 2007 5:28 PM, Elvis Budimlic
<ebudimlic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Do you mean CvtDateToNumISO?  Going from DATE to NUMERIC, not the other way
> around.
>
> If so, do you mind running another test?
>
> Take Charles' code out of the UDF and put it in the SQL statement itself.
> Then run it.
> I'm curious to see if UDF call itself contributes any significant overhead.
>
> BTW, do you have an index over the numeric(8,0) field?
> If not, I think it would be worth running a test again after you create one.
>
> Elvis
>
> Celebrating 10-Years of SQL Performance Excellence on IBM i5/OS and OS/400
> http://centerfieldtechnology.com/training.asp
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Subject: Re: SQL Date Math
>
> Charles' CvtNumtoDateISO function works swell! It takes 120 seconds
> for my query (56M records) using the date and substr method, and 39
> seconds for the CvtNumToDateISO method. And that's on the development
> system. Much faster on the production system.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.