At 1/30/2002 01:17 AM -0500, you wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> >If it's a small database, I'd go for the fingerprint; if it's fairly
> >large, then studying the overhead versus the bulk is important. Don't
> >know enough about tuning to help you, though; just know that whoe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
>If it's a small database, I'd go for the fingerprint; if it's fairly
>large, then studying the overhead versus the bulk is important. Don't
>know enough about tuning to help you, though; just know that whoe
At 1/29/2002 11:20 AM -0800, you wrote:
>This is not a Red Hat-specific issue, but there are some db-savvy
>people in the peanut gallery. I'm hoping that someone with an
>appreciation of database performance issues can tell me what kind of a
>hit I'd be likely to suffe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"And now for something completely different."
This is not a Red Hat-specific issue, but there are some db-savvy
people in the peanut gallery. I'm hoping that someone with an
appreciation of database performance issues can tell me
