On 6/5/15 11:07 AM, deavid wrote:
> Did I miss something?
These are interesting ideas but the problem here is the problem is far
to hypothetical. You're trying to defer index maintenance cost in a case
where if there's any real problem the index pages are already in memory.
So if it's too slow it's not because of IO... but then why is it too slow?
If you have significantly more than 10M rows then IO would be much more
likely to be a problem, but at that point you should probably just be
partitioning anyway.
If you want to attract attention here I think you'll need to come up
with some concrete scenarios and provide data on where all the
performance hit actually is.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com