> > > On 2014-02-05 12:38, Jan Møller wrote: > > Ahh... very clever. > > Just to get it right. Since the index is on binB I assume that binA and > binB should be switched in your examples. > > Thanks a lot, I'll try it out > > > > You declared the table like this: > CREATE TABLE myTable(binA BINARY(34) PRIMARY KEY, binB BINARY(21), > value BIGINT); > with > binA BINARY(34) PRIMARY KEY > which means that H2 would have implicitly created an index on binA >
Doh... you are right. Now it works. Thanks. With this setup I get the queries split into smaller chunks, but the total execution time is about a factor of 2. It was worth a shot. I am a bit amazed that the throughput of my 8m record database is so much lower than my 400k record database, but then I read in another post that there might be an issue if the records have been heavily inserted/deleted, which they have, in particular in the big DB. I'll try and backup/re-build the DB to see if it makes any difference -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
