On Oct 10, 2018, at 8:54 PM, Gene Wirchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think the point of the article was to help remind people to think about >> indexes before just using them without understanding the effects on >> performance. Having a rule of thumb like 5 indexes per table would make me >> stop and consider whether a 6th index was required. If so, then great. But >> at least I would have thought about the benefits and negatives before doing >> it. Frankly, reminding people to consider the consequences of their actions >> is NEVER stupid advice. > > Sure. But putting an arbitrary in is not good advice. In a given case, > it might be that having a fifth index is wrong, or maybe, it is fine until > the tenth index.
“Rule of thumb” is not the same as “arbitrary”. The former is based upon experience and observation. The latter is pulled out of thin air. -- Ed Leafe _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
