On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Glenn Knickerbocker<[email protected]> wrote:
> With about a half-million master records (numbers up to a million with a > 1 in them, split between numbers with and without zeroes) and a thousand > detail records (square numbers up to a million), it worked out about 5% > slower, but it sure seems a lot cleaner. Then I thought to try it with > more detail records, and saw that the two separate searches are a lot > faster once the masters are loaded. With a million detail records, the > whole mess came out 12% faster. Considering that Bob was probably not going to look up all IBM employees, a change of the master and detail roles could be attractive. Most likely constructing the binary tree with half a million records is more expensive than match them against a small reference table. Rob
