List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Nils Valentin Date:June 9 2003 11:44pm
Subject:Re: arrangement of fields in a table
View as plain text  
Hi Mohitaba,

Sounds to me that it makes sense to put the important 8 fields at least in a 
separate table to speed up any SELECT requests.

You may even consider putting a copy of the small table containing only the 8 
fields into the memory as a heap table ( if they are not containing any blobs 
or text variables) if your access trend is going to be read only mostly.

Generally speaking a table with 100 fields I guess would slow down operation 
immensly if you put statements like

SELECT * FROM tablename;

I would consider to spilt the data (if possible ) over several tables.

Best regards

Nils Valentin
Tokyo/Japan 

2003年 6月 10日 火曜日 02:40、Mojtaba Faridzad さんは書きました:
> Hi,
>
> I need to define for example 100 fields in a table. 8 of them are more
> important and many queries just need these fields. Should I define them
> before the other fields in the table or it doesn't matter? Is accessing the
> the beginning fields faster than the other fields?
>
> thanks

-- 
================================================
Valentin Nils
Internet Technology

 E-Mail: nils@stripped
 URL: http://www.knowd.co.jp
================================================

Thread
Fw: 2 questions about indexing and testing speedMojtaba Faridzad9 Jun
  • arrangement of fields in a tableMojtaba Faridzad9 Jun
    • Re: arrangement of fields in a tableJeremy Zawodny9 Jun
    • Re: arrangement of fields in a tableNils Valentin10 Jun
  • Re: Fw: 2 questions about indexing and testing speedVictoria Reznichenko10 Jun
Re: Fw: 2 questions about indexing and testing speedrich johnson10 Jun
  • INT typeMojtaba Faridzad10 Jun
    • Re: INT typeDan Nelson10 Jun
RE: INT typeMike Hillyer10 Jun
  • Re: INT typeMojtaba Faridzad10 Jun
    • Re: INT typePaul DuBois10 Jun
    • Re: INT typeDan Nelson10 Jun