Re: Let me be the first
Lukas Barton said: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> Lukas Barton said: >> >>> And how did you solve the problem I'am facing now: >> >> Probably by using an index. >> > I am not so stupid not to use indexes. But are you smart enough to use the RIGHT index? > The problem is that the batch searches within all clients and account in > bank acorrding - person number, company number, person name and birth > date etc... > And this data are extremly large. So that the processing last minutes. Let's think about this for a second. Person A is doing a batch routine that has to process every customer account in a branch (say branch X). Person B is doing interactive queries for random customers, some of which may be in branch X. Let's say that Person B is looking into the details for Customer 123, who happens to bank at branch X. If person A is currently processing customer 123, then it's only right that person B can't see the rows for customer 123. But if person A is processing some other customer's data, then I can't really see why the data for customer 123 should be locked. Why would the data for customer 123 be locked? -- Bye now, Obnoxio "... no bill is required as no value was provided." -- Christine Normile -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Lukas Barton said: >> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> Lukas Barton said: >>> >>>> And how did you solve the problem I'am facing now: >>> Probably by using an index. >>> >> I am not so stupid not to use indexes. > > But are you smart enough to use the RIGHT index? You might want to reconsider your question in light of the fact that in Oracle reads never block writes and writes never block reads. A feature SQL Server 2005 has duplicated. If Informix want to complete with the market leaders it needs to have equivalent technology ... not a dwindling cadre legacy expert developers. If you have to be "smart enough to use the RIGHT index" you are going to follow Ingres into oblivion. -- Daniel Morgan University of Washington
DA Morgan wrote: > > > You might want to reconsider your question in light of the fact that > in Oracle reads never block writes and writes never block reads. A > feature SQL Server 2005 has duplicated. > > If Informix want to complete with the market leaders it needs to have > equivalent technology ... not a dwindling cadre legacy expert > developers. > > If you have to be "smart enough to use the RIGHT index" you are going > to follow Ingres into oblivion. > My words. I wanna use SQL via JDBC. I don't like to program in RPG, ... or write stored procedures. When I first came to programming for OS400 DB2 I meant there could be no more crazy database. (eg. query palnner does not use indexes when you OR two indexed columns in where condition (with the same query PostgreSQL, Oracle, Informix, Interbase, Firebird, PC DB2 and MS SQL does use them)). But recently I found one ..... eg. you cannot delete all rows from standard table (with loging) if the table is large... Lukas
DA Morgan said: > If Informix want to complete with the market leaders it needs to have > equivalent technology ... not a dwindling cadre legacy expert > developers. > > If you have to be "smart enough to use the RIGHT index" you are going > to follow Ingres into oblivion. Thank you, oh sanctimonious one, for your words of wisdom, which I will treasure forever. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "... no bill is required as no value was provided." -- Christine Normile -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.