Andrew, 60 will be enough also :) It was just quick calculated value with
rounding.
Real inline size for the case is 53: 1 /* byte, type code */ + 2 /* short,
length of array */ 50 /* data size for ANSI chars */
пт, 30 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:09, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>:
> Yuri, how did you get inline size 60?
> I'd think 55 should be enough to inline Account_ID. 55 = 1 /* byte, type
> code */ + 4 /* int, array lenght */ + 50 /* data size for ANSI chars */
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 1:25 PM Юрий <jury.gerzhedow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Please provide explain plan of the query to check that index is use. *EXPLAIN
>> {your select statement}*
>>
>> Also I noticed ACCOUNT_ID have length 50. Need to increase of inline
>> index size for the index.
>>
>> Try create index with the follow command *CREATE INDEX
>> PERF_POSITIONS_IDX ON PERF_POSITIONS (ACCOUNT_ID) INLINE_SIZE 60;*
>>
>> чт, 29 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:47, yongjec <yong...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I tried the additional index as you suggested, but it did not improve the
>>> query time. The query still takes 58-61 seconds.
>>>
>>> CREATE INDEX PERF_POSITIONS_IDX ON PERF_POSITIONS (ACCOUNT_ID);
>>> CREATE INDEX PERF_POSITIONS_IDX2 ON PERF_POSITIONS (ACCOUNT_ID,
>>> EFFECTIVE_DATE, FREQUENCY, SOURCE_ID, SECURITY_ALIAS, POSITION_TYPE);
>>>
>>>
>>> I also tried the single column index only without the composite index.
>>> That
>>> did not make any difference in query time, either.
>>>
>>> CREATE INDEX PERF_POSITIONS_IDX ON PERF_POSITIONS (ACCOUNT_ID);
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Живи с улыбкой! :D
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>
--
Живи с улыбкой! :D
