Re: UPDATE STATISTICS Question
Lucky Leavell [RIS] wrote in message ... >Informix 7.31 > > In the Performance Guide (or was it the SQL Syntax Guide), it states > that one should use HIGH for the entire table on small tables. Just > what qualifies as a "small" table: 1000 rows? 100,000 rows? ?? > Actually, there is a specific number that Informix has in mind for that. It's something in the region of a few thousand or a few 10 thousand rows. It's a really odd number with no zero's at the end. I can't recall the number, in fact, I can't exactly remember where to go looking but I have a hunch it's in either a recent Informix Tech Notes article or one of the books from a Admin or Tuning course.
Andrew Hamm wrote in message <3a5e4380$1@news.iprimus.com.au>... >Lucky Leavell [RIS] wrote in message ... >>Informix 7.31 >> >> In the Performance Guide (or was it the SQL Syntax Guide), it states >> that one should use HIGH for the entire table on small tables. Just >> what qualifies as a "small" table: 1000 rows? 100,000 rows? ?? >> > FOUND IT! Informix Tech Notes, Volume 9, Issue 4, page 7 and I quote: "Based on the sampling techniques used by the UPDATE STATISTICS command, any table with more than 26,570 rows is considered a "very large" table. With no explanations given as to why. No doubt it could be found in the description of UPSTATS. So now we all know what a very large table is - who said gigabytes? Bahh!
In article <3a5e552c$1@news.iprimus.com.au>, Andrew Hamm <ahamm@sanderson.net.au> writes >Andrew Hamm wrote in message <3a5e4380$1@news.iprimus.com.au>... >>Lucky Leavell [RIS] wrote in message ... >>>Informix 7.31 >>> >>> In the Performance Guide (or was it the SQL Syntax Guide), it states >>> that one should use HIGH for the entire table on small tables. Just >>> what qualifies as a "small" table: 1000 rows? 100,000 rows? ?? >>> >> >FOUND IT! Informix Tech Notes, Volume 9, Issue 4, page 7 > >and I quote: > >"Based on the sampling techniques used by the UPDATE STATISTICS command, any >table with more than 26,570 rows is considered a "very large" table. > One for the FAQ! >With no explanations given as to why. No doubt it could be found in the >description of UPSTATS. > >So now we all know what a very large table is - who said gigabytes? Bahh! > > > -- David Williams