RE: CURSOR-Table Scan vs Index Scan -- MIDRANGE-L

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

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

Subject: RE: CURSOR-Table Scan vs Index Scan
From: Justin Taylor <JUSTIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 21:20:06 +0000
List-archive: <https://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: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

We don't own SMP.

The LF is referenced for RPG RLA, so deleting it isn't practical.

Run SQL Scripts uses a shared pool, and the RPG app is 5250 running in the Interactive pool.

Pool faults are low, so I don't think it's starved for memory.

-----Original Message-----
From: Diego Kesselman [mailto:diegokesselman@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 3:26 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: CURSOR-Table Scan vs Index Scan

Are you using DB2 SMP with *MAX or *OPTIMIZE level? If so, have you tried using QAQQINI to disable paralellism?

Have you tried deleting the LF (wether is possible) and creating a new DDL Index?

Are you running your SQL on *BASE pool?

Do you have enough memory in your pool?

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.