>Boydell, Stuart <Stuart.Boydell <at> spotless.com.au> writes: > > Hmm, I just tried the 2 different selects ... order by f1,f2 ... and order by @id,f1,f2 on one of my files with > 27000 items/ 150000 exploded rows and there was no appreciable difference between the 2. The select took > only about a 2 second delay to start returning rows to screen in both cases. (UV 10.2.4/AIX) > So that makes your order by look very slow considering the number of items. Maybe have a look at your file > sizing or your SQL environment (SET.SQL). > Stuart >
Actually my SELECT with an ORDER BY also returns records to screen very quickly - the difference is when I capture all the results. For some reason the sorted SELECT will get slower and slower until it comes to a crawl. The unsorted one will return the entire result set very quickly. So however it's working, it figures out what to sort *very quickly* because it begins to return results almost immediately, but it must be performing additional work to display each record because it starts to really slow down. I've checked things like file size, indexes, etc... but nothing seems to help. Yesterday I ran a query that returned the entire result set without an ORDER BY in 12 seconds, but with the ORDER BY on 2 columns took 55 minutes! Both returned the exact same number of records. And like I said, they both return initial results to screen very quickly. Something's not right. _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
