Re: Performance of upper()

I did a test between SPL Upper vs. Upper() and my results were: Query ==== select upper(name) from org The org table had about 200k rows. With the SPL Upper, it took 7m34s. With the Upper(), it took 0m51s. I ran this on a Sun e3000, two-cpus, 1gig mem. The org table is non-fragmented. I also noticed that the Upper() to took precedence over SPL Upper,i.e., our SPL Upper was called upper. HTH. Steve Romankiw Marty Allred wrote: > We're having some real problems with the horrible performance of using > the SPL version of upper(). In comparing our options on how to work > around this, we're considering just upgrading to 7.3x so we can use the > built-in upper() function. > > What kind of performance improvement is there in using the built-in > function as compared to the klunky SPL version? Is it strictly a matter > of convenience or is it really faster? > > -- > Marty Allred > Informix DBA, Orchestrate.com