Firebird 1.5 classic on Windows.
Is it possible to have a SQL with union all and an order by that includes a
field that is not in the selects?
I'd be very surprised if this was possible, logically you sort a result set and
the result set that does not contain your field. If it wasn't for the
Hello,
I am busy with code for generating the Parameter Buffer for the Service Manager
and Im trying to find the mapping (correct values) for actions like
isc_svc_display_users. Could you perhaps direct me to any official
documentation for such constant - value mapping. I am unable to find it
Hi,
I am busy with code for generating the Parameter Buffer for the Service
Manager and Im trying to find the mapping (correct values) for actions like
isc_svc_display_users. Could you perhaps direct me to any official
documentation for such constant - value mapping. I am unable to find it
Many Thanks!
Will go check.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Thomas Steinmaurer
t...@iblogmanager.comwrote:
**
Hi,
I am busy with code for generating the Parameter Buffer for the Service
Manager and Im trying to find the mapping (correct values) for actions like
isc_svc_display_users.
select fieldA, fieldB from table1
where (fieldA starting with 'bd'
or fieldA starting with 'bi')
and fieldA between 'bd' and 'bj')
order by fieldA asc, fieldC asc
Thanks, will try that out and report back.
I started to use the union instead of the OR when we
were still on
select fieldA, fieldB from table1
where (fieldA starting with 'bd'
or fieldA starting with 'bi')
and fieldA between 'bd' and 'bj')
order by fieldA asc, fieldC asc
Thanks, will try that out and report back.
I started to use the union instead of the OR when we
were
Have tested and the difference is still enormous, some factor 10.
As predicted the added between is slightly quicker than the union
construction and
thanks for that tip. This is in fact quite useful for me as currently
I have to convert
a OR SQL in code (VB) to the UNION and as you can imagine
Have tested and the difference is still enormous, some factor 10.
As predicted the added between is slightly quicker than the union construction
and thanks for that tip. This is in
fact quite useful for me as currently I have to convert a OR SQL in code (VB)
to the UNION and as you can imagine
Hi!
I have never tried to change Firebird's default settings, because the
server has always been good enough and if it isn't broken, don't fix
it. But I can't help but wonder about some of the settings, because I
don't understand their default values. Specifically, assuming Firebird
2.5 in
Well, it is simple, with the union and with the added between it will
use the index on that field, but with the simple or construction it
won't.
Looks like an omission in the planning code.
RBS
On 7/16/12, Svein Erling Tysvær svein.erling.tysv...@kreftregisteret.no wrote:
Have tested and the
It looks simply replacing the like 'bd%' with starting with 'bd' will
make it use the index as well. Will be simpler to do that in code than
adding the between.
RBS
On 7/16/12, Bart Smissaert bart.smissa...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it is simple, with the union and with the added between it will
It looks simply replacing the like 'bd%' with starting with 'bd' will make it
use the index as well. Will be
simpler to do that in code than adding the between.
Does your statement actually use 'bd%' or a parameter? LIKE :MyParameter can
never use an index since it doesn't know if the
Does your statement actually use 'bd%' or a parameter?
It uses 'bd%', so no parameters. Using the starting with will make it all
simple
as I can do that at source, so no need to programmatically alter a SQL.
RBS
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Svein Erling Tysvær
Firebird 1.5 classic on Windows.
Is there a limit to the number of OR conditions you can put in a where clause?
It looks there is as I get unexpected end of command when there are
some 2000 ors, but
maybe that is due limitations of the control holding the SQL. I found
some 150 ors is still fine.
Firebird 1.5 classic on Windows.
Is there a limit to the number of OR conditions you can put in a where clause?
It looks there is as I get unexpected end of command when there are
some 2000 ors, but
maybe that is due limitations of the control holding the SQL. I found
some 150 ors is still
Ah, yes, didn't think of that.
Any idea roughly how many characters that will be?
RBS
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Thomas Steinmaurer
t...@iblogmanager.comwrote:
**
Firebird 1.5 classic on Windows.
Is there a limit to the number of OR conditions you can put in a where
clause?
It
Hi Philip,
Putting some of the smarts into a COMPUTED BY field was a good idea. What I
didn't tell you in the original posting was that I actually had two tables with
a very similar structure, with the same speed problem. The first one, without
any BLOB fields ran much faster using the
Ah, yes, didn't think of that.
Any idea roughly how many characters that will be?
~ 64K characters, if your SQL text is using a 1 byte per character
encoding, and possibly less for a multi-byte enconding, although I'm not
entirely sure if this applies in that area.
--
With regards,
Thomas
I think you want to change the way you look at this - how do you manage
to control/check it? I can only imagine its a stored procedure. In which
case (no pun intended) you should be able to pass a variable and take
action accordingly. I can't remember if the execute statement ability
was in
Firebird 1.5 classic on Windows.
Is there a limit to the number of OR conditions you can put in a where clause?
It looks there is as I get unexpected end of command when there are some 2000
ors, but maybe that is due
limitations of the control holding the SQL. I found some 150 ors is still fine.
OK, thanks, I can look out for that and take appropriate action.
RBS
On 7/16/12, Thomas Steinmaurer t...@iblogmanager.com wrote:
Ah, yes, didn't think of that.
Any idea roughly how many characters that will be?
~ 64K characters, if your SQL text is using a 1 byte per character
encoding,
Interesting idea that, but I don't think I need it.
Actually we are not allowed to write to the database only read.
RBS
On 7/16/12, Svein Erling Tysvær svein.erling.tysv...@kreftregisteret.no wrote:
Firebird 1.5 classic on Windows.
Is there a limit to the number of OR conditions you can put in
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 6:35 PM, mariuszstefaniak
mariuszstefan...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've strange problem. Sometimes (sometimes, because problem is quite
irregular), after I altered procedure, firebird still runs unchanged
(previous) version of my procedure. Procedure fired directly (by
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Josef Kokeš j.ko...@apatykaservis.czwrote:
Hi!
Specifically, assuming Firebird
2.5 in the default install (which, I believe, is using SuperServer):
- CpuAffinityMask - I can see why the value 1 would be a safe lower
bound, but why doesn't the server
The problem is that SuperServer is multi-threaded but not
interlocked, so only one thread runs at a time so it cannot take
advantage of multiple cores. Some operating systems move the process
from one core to another in an attempt to balance load. That degrades
performance, but can be
After experiencing significant slowdowns on clients upgrading to Windows Server
2008, we have decided to work on configuring a Linux server to host our
Firebird databases.
The problem we are having is that our benchmarking is showing that Window 7 is
outperfoming Linux (CentOS).
The same
26 matches
Mail list logo
