×

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.




Thanks for posting this Michael. It goes to prove little performance tuning
can go a long way.

As for the difference between UDF & inline code, I knew there is some
overhead to call a UDF but it's hard to quantify without benchmarks. Some
of it can be eased by choosing certain CREATE FUNCTION arguments carefully.
See page 4 of this Centerfield newsletter for an example:

http://www.centerfieldtechnology.com/publications/archive/Oct%202006.pdf

Bottom line is that going through 56M records in 2 seconds is pretty darn
good. Way to go DB2 for i5/OS!

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

That was interesting. Here are the results.

All run in interactive SQL, approximately 56M records. Index built
over the numeric field (which took a freaking long time btw - like 10
minutes).

Using CvtDateToNumISO function with no index - 45 seconds
Using function code with no index - 38 seconds
Using CvtDateToNumISO function with index - 11 seconds
Using function code with index - 2 seconds


This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 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.