|
LOL - there go all my theories!
I think I'll run this by my IBM friend and see what's up.
And just to be anal about this - is that index advice attached to that
statement?
Luis asks an interesting kind of question, seems to me - maybe the value
for SFHPSTMP was nearer the end - but I'm not sure that would influence
things.
Have you had a chance to get a Visual Explain result on this? That
usually has some of the advice listed - maybe, IIRC, with reasons.
Curiouser and curiouser!!
Vern
On 1/14/2015 4:46 PM, Gqcy wrote:
ok....
now I have a good example
SQL Plan Cache statements shows:
SELECT * FROM sfplib.sfpbhkspf WHERE sfhptstmp = ? ORDER BY sfhbid ASC;
however,
CREATE INDEX SFPLIB.SFPBHKSPF_INDEX_00001 ON SFPLIB.SFPBHKSPF
(SFHPTSTMP DESC, SFHBID DESC);
On 1/14/2015 2:54 PM, John Yeung wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Vernon Hamberg
<vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Strictly speaking, the optimizer can use an ASC key to return rows
in DESC
order pretty efficiently - just start at the end and go backwards. Like
SETGT and READPE using an ASCending key LF.
This is exactly why OP is asking why DESC is being called for. If
ascending and descending are close enough to equivalent, why prefer
DESC?
Also, from OP's apparent level of surprise, I would guess he either
doesn't have anything that explicitly asks for descending order, or he
has a mix of ascending and descending.
John Y.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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.