RE: CQE, SQE and QAQQINI

["Elvis Budimlic" <ebudimlic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I personally would definitely go for it, since I've witnessed dramatic
improvements SQE can offer on many occasions. I'm positive with proper
indexing strategy I can get at least close to the CQE queries leveraging S/O
LFs. And if remaining queries turn out to be critical for some particular
process, I could create a QAQQINI copy with IGNORE_DERIVED_INDEX set to *NO
and let it run as it used to.

Only hands on experience I have is with our customers running BPCS, and they
switched it back to *NO rather than trying to optimize it under SQE. 
BPCS has a lot of files and queries so I would prefer not to underestimate
the amount of tuning work involved.

Elvis

Celebrating 11-Years of SQL Performance Excellence on IBM i, i5/OS and
OS/400
www.centerfieldtechnology.com


-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: CQE, SQE and QAQQINI

Elvis,

Have you any hands on experience in a BPCS shop?

It would seem to me, that some combination of additional EVI and
regular indexes should allow the SQE to perform as fast as the CQE
would have using S/O logicals.

In other words, while a "quick fix" for a BPCS shop would be to set
IGNORE_DERIVED_INDEX= *NO, with a little work a BPCS shop could take
advantage of SQE.

Do you agree/disagree?

Charles