Re: intermittent commit on insert ?

Galen,

Yes, seems like junk. But with regard to that the invitation to THINK (as pleasently issued by Sybrand) is not that devious. And the best lesson I took from Tom Kyte is: Measure. Maybe his solution is somewhat inadequate in your particular situation, but it's always worth thinking about this approach.

BTW: Prashant Sarodes incredible knowledge-list includes Java, EJB, C, C++, Coldfusion, VB 6.0, CGI scripts in C on the Linux platform, MySQL, and Oracle/ Developer 2000. Personally, I don't see any database qualification mentioned...

Norbert

"Galen Boyer" <galenboyer_at_hotpop.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:usn40zwd7.fsf_at_hotpop.com...
> On 5 Jun 2002, galenboyer_at_hotpop.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, stephen.bell_at_cgi.ca wrote:
> > HERE'S THE AUTHOR:
> >
> > About the author:
> >
> > Prashant Sarode is currently working with Syntel India Ltd as a
> > Technical Analyst. Syntel is a Global Technlogy Company
> >
> > that is adept at developing and managing the latest advanced
> > technologies such as CORBA, J2EE, .NET, XML, WAP, etc. Prashant's
> > skill sets include Java, EJB, C, C++, Coldfusion, VB 6.0, CGI
> > scripts in C on the Linux platform, MySQL, and Oracle/ Developer
> > 2000. Prashant can be reached at prashuss_at_hotmail.com.
>
> Here's another brilliant thought!
>
> 14.Use WHERE in Place of HAVING
>
> Avoid including a HAVING clause in SELECT statements. The HAVING
clause
> filters selected rows only after all rows have been fetched. This
could
> include sorting, summing, etc. Restricting rows via the WHERE clause,
> rather than the HAVING clause, helps reduce these overheads. For
> example:
>
> Least Efficient :
> SELECT REGION, AVG(LOC_SIZE)
> FROM LOCATION
> GROUP BY REGION
> HAVING REGION != žSYDNEYž
> AND REGION != žPERTHž
>
> Most Efficient :
> SELECT REGION, AVG(LOC_SIZE)
> FROM LOCATION
> GROUP BY REGION
> WHERE REGION != žSYDNEYž
> AND REGION != žPERTHž
>
> Of course you don't use having in the case he talks about! You use
> having when you need to further restrict on the results of a group by.
> But, some people will read this and decide to never use having, when it
> is probably one of the more underused features of SQL, IMHO (I went at
> least 4 years in databases until I was introduced to having.) I use
> having all the time. Here's the type of query I run daily, many times.
>
> select fld1,fld2,...,fldn,count(*)
> from table
> group by fld1,fld2,...,fldn
> having count(*) > some_number;
>
> I use it so much I have it bound to an interactive abbreviation, "scgh"
>
> I guess I should avoid having? How the flip do people get to publish
> such bunk?
>
> -
> Galen deForest Boyer
> Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground.
Received on Thu Jun 06 2002 - 03:24:22 CDT