Thanks for fast response.
I think the reason Derby didn't used any index is because since this
table, for my tests purposes has only one record, I've not created any
index at all.
I suspect that one record table will be in cache for a long time (since
it's a comment making queries over this table in my code). At all, this
one record is having "cost 13", so it's not the problem.
My problem appear be in the sub-select. Each sub-select make queries
over a 33000 records table. I think I forgot to make a better index for
it. After indexing, performance got better (not perfect, but it's usable
- I think the large amout of log being generated is the reason for the
little delay in responses). The cost for sub-select query dropped down
from near 13000 to 19,85.
I other databases (like MaxDB and MS SQL, this table was kept in memory,
because he is considered "small"). That's the reason I never made any
indexing over it.
I'll try links sent at other mails, so I could discover if Tomcat
integration has it's secrets too.
Thank you all for comments,
Edson Richter
begin:vcard
fn:Edson Carlos Ericksson Richter
n:Richter;Edson
org;quoted-printable:MGR Inform=C3=A1tica Ltda;Desenvolvimento
adr:Cristo Redentor;;Assis Brasil, 3257, Sala 409;Porto Alegre;RS;91010007;Brasil
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Diretor de Sistemas
tel;work:(51)3347-0446
tel;cell:(51)9259-2993
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.mgrinformatica.com.br
version:2.1
end:vcard
