Ok!
That was a way I found to explain my problem (poor I know!).
In the real database those tables have complete structure with the
apropriate indexes for the relationships and "substancial number of rows".
I'm having this problem with this database I'm working on. The actual
structure was made using those computed fields, so I fall in doubt.
If I change this structure, if I eliminate those computed fields
(optionally, you know, I can make joins to obtain the same result set),
will I have best performance if I do this (changes)?

Martijn Tonies escreveu:

>Hello,
>
>
>
>
>>If my data base has a table that is related with ten other tables and,
>>in each one of these ten tables exists one field that I have that to
>>show together in a consultation with the first table. What of this two
>>options goes to give the best performance?
>>
>>
>
>Well, basically, the one that gives you the best performance is the
>one that gives you the best performance.
>
>Given that you did not create any indices or keys, I suspect performance
>(on non-empty tables with a substantial number of rows) is bad in either
>case.
>
>With regards,
>
>Martijn Tonies
>Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL
>Server
>Upscene Productions
>http://www.upscene.com
>
>
>
>Visit http://firebird.sourceforge.net and click the Resources item
>on the main (top) menu. Try Knowledgebase and FAQ links !
>
>Also search the knowledgebases at http://www.ibphoenix.com
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>