Re: Hash Table Probe -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: Hash Table Probe
From: Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:17:16 -0600
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.lists.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@lists.midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Greg,

Are we to understand that you're running two select statements? One that
generates a result set? Another that returns a count of 20-40?

Since the count is so low, it might be quicker to count the rows yourself
during a "fetch" loop as opposed to running "select count(*) ..."

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:06 PM Greg Wilburn <
gwilburn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sorry... I should have mentioned that I've already been through some of
these explanations.

It's returning a count of 20-40 (that's how many rows meet the
criteria)... The Select is using
OPTIMIZE FOR 250 ROWS (as suggested by the IBM DB group)

The SQL statements are executing within a CGI application... so I can only
really control the source (view) and the indexes.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

RE: Hash Table Probe , Greg Wilburn

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.