Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Re: ORDER BY on large VARCHAR columns |
---|---|
Author | Ann W. Harrison |
Post date | 2004-10-28T18:14:54Z |
At 12:52 PM 10/28/2004, robert_difalco wrote:
between any two existing values... not infinite, but quite a bit.
a histogram table of representative varchars and numbers to limit the
number of records you need to sort, you can control how long inserts
take by adjusting the granularity of the histogram table.
within a group than bouncing back and forth.
Regards,
Ann
> >The nice thing about floating point is that there's lots of room
> > Creating a floating point column that's used just for sorting that
> > varchar.
>
>Cool, if you check out my first post on this subject, that was my
>first guess; save that I was thinking an int64 instead of a float.
between any two existing values... not infinite, but quite a bit.
>My only issue is wondering how long an INSERT could take if I haveAs I said, the crude approach will take quite a while. If you keep
>10,000,000 records (this is really the upper limit of how large this
>table may grow).
a histogram table of representative varchars and numbers to limit the
number of records you need to sort, you can control how long inserts
take by adjusting the granularity of the histogram table.
>I also wonder if with this FLOAT or INT64 column, if I could do aProbably, though SQL is much better at finding a group and searching
>binary search to find the new INSERT position. Just not exactly sure
>how to do that (i.e. look at previous records from my first SELECT).
within a group than bouncing back and forth.
Regards,
Ann