Re: Index read performance -- MIDRANGE-L

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

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

Subject: Re: Index read performance
From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:24:04 -0500
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/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Some of this depends on which order the keys were created. Something
about shared access path...

Then there's how the key was created.
Access path maintenance . . . . MAINT
*IMMED
*DLY
*REBLD

If *IMMED then a performance difference shouldn't have been noticed upon
use, but you can see how the others may make a difference, eh?

Rob Berendt

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

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.