[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: __index returns truncated to one, why?
- From: Geoff Leyland <geoff_leyland@...>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:07:00 +1200
On 11/04/2014, at 10:44 am, Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@trms.com> wrote:
> Whenever I hear about avoiding temporary tables, I wonder if the
> concern is based on theory, micro benchmarking or real-world
> application problems.
I’ve just had a “real world” situation where reducing temporary table creation halved the time it took to perform a computation. Granted, the original code was probably a bit wasteful with them, and algorithmic improvements made a bigger difference, but temporary tables were a measurable factor.
- References:
- __index returns truncated to one, why?, duz
- Re: __index returns truncated to one, why?, Dirk Laurie
- Re: __index returns truncated to one, why?, Andrew Starks
- Re: __index returns truncated to one, why?, steve donovan
- Re: __index returns truncated to one, why?, Dirk Zoller
- Re: __index returns truncated to one, why?, steve donovan
- Re: __index returns truncated to one, why?, Duncan Cross
- Re: __index returns truncated to one, why?, Sean Conner
- Re: __index returns truncated to one, why?, Thiago L.
- Re: __index returns truncated to one, why?, steve donovan
- Re: __index returns truncated to one, why?, Javier Guerra Giraldez
- Re: __index returns truncated to one, why?, Andrew Starks