> Lastly, are you now using Derby 10.4 for all of this work, or are > you continuing to use 10.1? [Arindam] I will respond to the rest of your questions ASAP. The answer to the above question is : 10.4. I am using 10.4 now and it is significantly better than 10.1 both during insertion and during query.
Best regards, Arindam. On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Bryan Pendleton <[email protected]>wrote: > problem - thanks to Knut for indicating that as a possibility. When I >> compress the tables - the quries start performing a LOT faster! >> > > Good, I'm glad to hear that you've made some good progress. > > Do you get a different query plan now? Or is it just that the table > access is more efficient? > > Can you capture the runtime statistics information for the 30 second > query before you compressed the tables, and for the 1.1 second query > after you compressed the table, and compare them? > > You mention that you've run this query on other databases, and they > are much faster. Can you make any observations about why that might > be, and what they may be doing differently? For example, can you see > if the other database is using a different query plan and let us know > the general information about what that query plan is? > > Also, you mention that the query runs quite well with 100 or 500 elements > in the IN clause, but falls down with 1000 elements in the IN clause. > Again, I'd be interested to know how the runtime statistics information > compares between those two cases. Is it that we using a substantially > different query plan for the larger query? Or is there some other behavior? > > Lastly, are you now using Derby 10.4 for all of this work, or are > you continuing to use 10.1? > > thanks, > > bryan > >
