----- "nha" <lyondif02@free.fr> wrote:
>
> Another way could concern the hash join. It has been shown that this
> step costs a lot with respect to the overall runtime. Depending on
> available storage space and DBMS load, a kind of materialized view
> may
> be handled in order to cut off the overloading join. Here are some
> suggested statements to create this helper table:
>
[snip]
Hi nha,
Sorry about the long lag after your last post. I didn't want to post
back until I had something solid to report on. Using a materialized
view turned out to be the best way to solve my problem. My coworker
designed a new table that consists of the key columns for 3 large
tables that were being joined. A trigger is used to make sure
the "materialized view" is kept up-to-date. Since new data is added
infrequently (once a month), the cost of keeping the materialized view
up-to-date is cheap. The resulting query runs exceedingly fast! :)
Thank you so much for your guidance. I have learned a lot from this
incident!