done. but i did not test it :(. so be carefull next thing i'll do in jOOQ: make myself a working eclipse workspace......
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 5:20:35 PM UTC+2, Lukas Eder wrote: > > Hi Stan, > > > I'm back from vacation and did some measurements this morning. > > I also find that #3 performs better than #4 with a more complicated > query. > > In this experiment, #3 needs more buffer reads than #4 (#4 uses 20% less > > buffer reads), > > but performs much better (#4 needs 60% more time than #3). > > Great, so let's include your addition. In the mean time, I > double-checked with the legacy parts of our E-Banking application. > Most of it uses #3 as well. > > > So unless an oracle guru advises against it, I would implement #3. > > I've had some DBA advise against #3 in favour of #4, but my > measurements could not confirm that. Besides, others advised the other > way round. > > Can you create a pull request from this: > > https://github.com/stanislas/jOOQ/commit/cea35b05390cd4ccebccf19621ecfafacf2da148 > > > Cheers > Lukas > > 2012/5/24 Stanislas Nanchen <[email protected]>: > > Hi Lukas, > > > > I'm back from vacation and did some measurements this morning. > > I also find that #3 performs better than #4 with a more complicated > query. > > In this experiment, #3 needs more buffer reads than #4 (#4 uses 20% less > > buffer reads), > > but performs much better (#4 needs 60% more time than #3). > > > > So unless an oracle guru advises against it, I would implement #3. > > > > cu. stan. >
