Dan The MSSQL table I'm updating has 4 rows. The Oracle table I'm updating has 256 rows.
I don't quite understand how that would matter since they aren't in the query that is so much slower in Oracle than in MSSQL. Bryan On 5/14/07, Dan Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about the number of rows of data in the table you are updating? If there were no indexes and the key you used to find the exact record to update required a full table scan, I can see a performance degradation. DW On 5/14/07, Bryan S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan > > I'm guessing you'd consider this significant. I'm not sure if it would > account for the huge difference in speed though? > > > The tables that the MSSQL version queries followed by the number of rows in > the table: > INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS - 63 > INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLE_CONSTRAINTS - 12 > INFORMATION_SCHEMA.CONSTRAINT_COLUMN_USAGE - 13 > > > The tables that the Oracle version queries followed by the number of rows in > the table: > all_tab_columns - 25616 > all_updatable_columns - 25616 > all_cons_columns - 11722 > all_constraints - 1498 > > > Bryan > > On 5/14/07, Dan Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A question. Is there a significant variance in the number of rows in > > your MSSQL database and the Oracle database?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
