select count(*) from INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLES; COUNT(*) <http://10.58.2.44:8082/query.do?jsessionid=a463531bf3c62477a31f00116b7beda7#> 1713(1 row, 34 ms)
select count(*) from INFORMATION_SCHEMA.INDEXES; COUNT(*) <http://10.58.2.44:8082/query.do?jsessionid=a463531bf3c62477a31f00116b7beda7#> 7557 This is "sample" database. We have four other databases which might be twice or three times as big, but same order of magniture. On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 9:35:49 AM UTC-7, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > Hi, > > You first indicate that the query can be sped by taking into account the >> schema name. >> > > I'm sorry! Yes, first I thought changing the query would help, but then I > found out there is no easy way to do that in this case. Even adding the > schema name as a condition will not help. That is, if you need all the info > that the query returns. The problem is the join (which is needed for the > "is nullable" column). This join will not use an efficient index. (Actually > there is an index, the MetaIndex, on the column "table_name", and this > index is used, but the index is inefficient if there are many tables). > > Later you indicate I should change the metadata, for example to use >> materialized metadata tables. >> > > That change would ideally be done in H2. > > >> What is the simplest way to make this query efficient? Can it be sped up >> by simply changing the query? >> > > That's a good question. > > How does your schema look like? How many tables and how many indexes and > schemas do you have? > > Regards, > Thomas > -- 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/d/optout.
