Re: CQE, SQE and QAQQINI

[Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>]

Johnathan,

95% of the time, the SQE is better for a given query than CQE.  IIRC
correctly, the only pervasive issue I've heard about was with queries
contained in JD Edwards, but IBM/Oracle had some PTFs for those.  I
think there's a knowledge base article on it.

Point out to your powers that be that at 6.1, IBM changes the system
default so that IGNORE_DERIVED_INDEXES = *YES.

I had ours changed in the middle of the day on a system with 800+
users and haven't looked backed.

Charles Wilt
Software Engineer
Cintas Corp.


On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Jonathan
Mason<jonathan.mason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We have an SQL statement that uses the CQE and runs extremely slowly.  In test I have created an Encoded Vector Index and also changed a local version of the QAQQINI file so that the IGNORE_DERIVED_INDEXES is set to *YES.
>
> With these settings the SQL runs extremely fast, however the powers that be are nervous about changing a global setting that would potentially affect all SQL requests.
>
> I've spent the morning talking to my friend, Google, and searching through the Midrange.com archives, and everything I have seen indicates that using the SQE is better than using the CQE.
>
> With this in mind, are there any pitfalls in changing the IGNORE_DERIVED_INDEXES setting to *YES?  Should we expect all SQL to run at least as fast as does currently or is there a risk that some SQL processes could run slower?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.