Title: | DEC/EDI |
Notice: | DEC/EDI V2.1 - see note 2002 |
Moderator: | METSYS::BABER |
Created: | Wed Jun 06 1990 |
Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Number of topics: | 3150 |
Total number of notes: | 13466 |
Hi, A customer noticed that we break our own recommendations in DECEDI$TOOLS:DECEDI$AUDIT_DATABASE.SQL for DEC/EDI V2.1C The comments says not to store more then one sorted index in the same storage area. A few lines down we do exactly that. Both indexes are for the same table. Does this have an impact on performance when sending/receiving large number of OFTP transmissions? Thanks, Sven-Olof ..... ! Create a misc storage area for each SORTED index. Do NOT store more than ! one sorted index in the same storage area; especially for the same table. ! This ensures that the index nodes for each index defined on the same table ! will not be stored on the same page within the same storage area because ! both indexes have the same logical area ID number. ..... create storage area AUDIT.MISC_AREA_COMS_1 filename DECEDI$AUDIT_DB_MISC_COMS_1 page format is UNIFORM page size is 2 blocks allocation is 200 pages extent is 100 pages ..... create unique index AUDIT.CLF_TRANSFILE_INDEX on AUDIT.CLF_TABLE ( TRNSFLE_S ) type is SORTED store in MISC_AREA_COMS_1 ..... create unique index AUDIT.CLF_LOOKUP_INDEX on AUDIT.CLF_TABLE ( LOOKUP_S ) type is SORTED store in MISC_AREA_COMS_1 .....
T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3025.1 | METSYS::THOMPSON | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:25 | 5 | ||
Hi Sven, We'll "fix" that comment next time! Mark | |||||
3025.2 | METSYS::THOMPSON | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:37 | 11 | ||
Just as an FYI: DEC/EDI is based upon code that was written over a number of years by people who have largely moved on to other jobs. In this case Raj and Andy are long gone. I'm sure the reason for the comment was known at the time, alas that knowledge walked out of the door with them. Mark | |||||
3025.3 | Fix the DB instead! | FXSTC::M_BEACH | Mike, USCSC | Tue Mar 04 1997 19:08 | 4 |
.1> We'll "fix" that comment next time! Please, fix the database instead; the comment is correct. Pleeeeeease. |