Simon Slavin-2 wrote:
>
>
> We can't give you much idea because . . .
> Another aspect is which fields you need to retrieve when you do your
> SELECT. If your select needs to retrieve the time field, and the time
> field doesn't appear in the index it's using, it will need to read the
> time from the record too. So that would increase the amount of time
> taken for retrieval.
>
> And lastly, of course, sorting on INTEGERs is a little quicker than
> sorting on REALs. And there are a few other considerations about
> handing and passing integers as opposed to floating-point numbers.
>
> Simon.
> __________
>
Thanks for the information, Simon. I didn't realize a SELECT statement
would read the data from the index itself, when possible, and I can see how
that could speed up a query.
No one jumped in and said "Definitely use integers for indexes instead of
reals" so I'm assuming there isn't a very large penalty in performance using
floats. That was what I was after in posting the question and I appreciate
you taking the time to reply to me.
Thanks again!
Dan
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Index-performance-using-2-integers-vs.-1-float-tp25165036p25228071.html
Sent from the SQLite mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
