Oh, and fwiw speed really isn't a major concern. This task only runs 6 times a day (and currently takes about 10 minutes, elapsed). That's acceptable and a 10% gain isn't really all that compelling given that the existing process is stable. -- bc
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Glenn Knickerbocker<[email protected]> wrote: > Christian Reichetzeder wrote: >> This might spoil the party, but why not splitting the reference in >> contractors >> and non-contractors and using two lookup stages. > > I tried a brief test of this, splitting up numbers with and without > zeroes--I can't say "quick test" since it took figuring out that my > NXPIPE MODULE was old, finding what I did wrong in trying to download it > back in April, and going back and looking up how to get it right! > > 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. > > ¬R >
