List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Johan De Meersman Date:September 26 2011 12:01pm
Subject:Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLES
View as plain text  
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hank" <heskin@stripped>
> 
>  Just an update. Using the "load index into cache" statement for the
> 200 million row indexed "source" table, my correlated update
> statement ran in 1 hour, 45 minutes to update 144 million rows.   A 50%
> increase in performance!

Good to hear :-)

Ignore leaves might be a nice trick in this situation, actually. I never thought of it,
but the leaves contain the record pointers, which you don't need because you have a
covering index. Nice thinking :-)


-- 
Bier met grenadyn
Is als mosterd by den wyn
Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel
Thread
Slower performance with LOCK TABLESHank22 Sep
  • Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESAntony T Curtis22 Sep
    • Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESHank22 Sep
Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESAntony T Curtis22 Sep
  • Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESHank22 Sep
    • Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESAnanda Kumar22 Sep
      • Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESHank22 Sep
        • Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESAnanda Kumar22 Sep
          • Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESHank22 Sep
            • Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESAnanda Kumar22 Sep
              • Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESHank22 Sep
                • Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESAnanda Kumar22 Sep
                • Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESJohan De Meersman23 Sep
                  • Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESHank23 Sep
                  • Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESHank23 Sep
                    • Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESJohan De Meersman26 Sep
                  • Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLEShsv23 Sep
Re: Slower performance with LOCK TABLESHank22 Sep