Re: {Spam?} RE: {Spam?} RE: Creating index with upper function

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > > Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 17:27:12 +0000 > > From: obnoxio@serendipita.com > > CC: informix-list@iiug.org > > Subject: Re: {Spam?} RE: Creating index with upper function > > > > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:58:45 +0000 > > > > From: obnoxio@serendipita.com > > > > > > > > Does that make sense or am I missing something? > > > > > > > > Do you have to make a comment on every post, whether it adds value or > > > > not? :o) > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Cheers, > > > > Obnoxio The Clown > > > > > > > No, > > > > > > I'll leave the 'Have you tried UPDATE STATISTICS? ' question for > you. :-) > > > > > > I think part of the problem is that I see people asking questions > on how > > > to do something without thinking about the actual problem they are > > > trying to solve. > > > > And functional indexes solve a lot of problems. Almost every client I > > have shown the feature to wants to use a functional index on UPPER, but > > can't because it's VARIANT. > > > > So if there is a functional index on a column then the optimizer will > always use the functional index and never do a sequential scan? > I'd say that you should talk with the guys writing the optimizer, just > to be sure. > > An alternative is to create a column which is an UPPER() of the other > column and then create an index on that column. > It will work. And of course, storage is 'cheap'. ;-) Oh, FFS. Go RTFM or STFU. -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.