× 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.



rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
So the UNIQUE was a good one in this case. I think it would be fair to say that for files of this genre, in which there should be no duplicate keys, then it should be a good one in all of that genre. Unless you can come up with a good business reason why not, and can give a sample thereof.
I thought I should do the runs myself, and I'm getting significantly different results, Rob.

With no key at all, I get the 330ms number. With a key but without UNIQUE, my average jumps to 1450ms. Add UNIQUE to the file, and it leaps to 9300+. You might want to check your results. I did it by actually performing a CHGPF on the file each time and clearing it before each run.

And this is for only a single key, but at the same time no data to speak of. I suspect the numbers change based on the size of the record and the size of the key. However, if my numbers are correct, then a 7-to-1 jump in overhead is nothing to sneeze at, and it requires a darned good business reason to add the keyword.

Joe

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

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

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.