×
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.
On 30-Jun-2016 06:34 -0500, Rob Berendt wrote:
There is a school of thought, disputed by some, that multiple
indexes aren't the beast that they used to be. Yes, I'm old enough
to remember numerous John Sears lectures on how he helped peoples
performance by reducing the very high (at the time) number of indexes
they had against their tables. Numerous "names" since then have said
that IBM has really changed stuff over the years that the performance
hit isn't nearly as severe.
Context matters greatly. Adding a few extra SMAPPed INDEXes in the
context of general I/O might not be too big of an impact for the
additional maintenance overhead. But for a dedicated reorganize, the
number and size of the access paths over the data being reorganized can
see a difference between having that data remain offline\unavailable for
a couple time-units and having that data remain unavailable for possibly
many|tens of time-units; those time-units still could be hours. So
planning to avoid serialized rebuilds is a good idea; ensuring the
rebuilds will be done in parallel after a large amount of data is
reorganized is very sensible, whereas failing to make that happen can
greatly impact the ability to access the data.
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.
midrange.com
