On 04-Apr-2012 20:22 , Nathan Andelin wrote:
We generally use RLA for single record I/O, and we generally use SQL
for set oriented I/O. Regarding the question of performance and
efficiency of RLA vs. SQL, what most people don't realize is that SQL
allocates large blocks of heap storage and often builds huge networks
of records in memory in order to perform well. <<SNIP>>

FWiW I think that descriptive contrast of resources for the SQL to RLA ignores the the comparative intent; i.e. describes too generally the SQL [set oriented], for the specifics of RLA [row oriented]. The comparison was not for generic reporting for which the SQL would in general prefer to make maximal use of available memory, but for single row operations. If the SQL is told for example, that the intent is to retrieve just one row [implied by the request, or OPTIMIZE FOR 1 ROW [and perhaps FOR READ ONLY to ensure a read-only cursor], then the SQL is not going to be [and I think the description is at some level hyperbole:] allocating large blocks of storage and building those so-called huge networks of rows in memory.

Regards, Chuck

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 1997-2019 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].