Subject | Re: [IBO] Understanding the IB_MonitorDialog Output |
---|---|
Author | Helen Borrie (TeamIBO) |
Post date | 2002-01-18T03:40:36Z |
At 03:25 AM 18-01-02 +0000, you wrote:
Also, in IB, it is worthwhile experimenting with indexing individual columns, rather than creating a number of composite indexes. The IB can use multiple indexes on *different* columns intelligently, whereas it can sometimes ignore indexes where the same column is involved in a variety of indexes of the same ordinality...if Trans_ID is your primary key here, then an ascending index is already available. You might find you get similar or better performance without the composite indexes.
regards,
Helen Borrie (TeamIBO Support)
** Please don't email your support questions privately **
Ask on the list and everyone benefits
Don't forget the IB Objects online FAQ - link from any page at www.ibobjects.com
>I have the following index defined on the tableNo, ascending is the default. If your want to offer a descending search order as an option, you need to support it by adding the same index in descending order.
>
>Create INDEX transtable1 ON transtable ( CUSTOMER, TRANS_ID,
>INV_NUMBER )
>
>And it is still slow does it need to be specified as descending?
>(I am currently under the impression that descending is the default)
Also, in IB, it is worthwhile experimenting with indexing individual columns, rather than creating a number of composite indexes. The IB can use multiple indexes on *different* columns intelligently, whereas it can sometimes ignore indexes where the same column is involved in a variety of indexes of the same ordinality...if Trans_ID is your primary key here, then an ascending index is already available. You might find you get similar or better performance without the composite indexes.
regards,
Helen Borrie (TeamIBO Support)
** Please don't email your support questions privately **
Ask on the list and everyone benefits
Don't forget the IB Objects online FAQ - link from any page at www.ibobjects.com