On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:40:08 -0500, John Gilmore <[email protected]> wrote:
>"A lot less cycles" here replaces a derisory number of them by an >exiguous one. Jantje's example could be further "refined", but to >what end? > Granted: in the overall total of cycles needed to build up the client connection, validate the user's authority, parsing the SQL statement, returning the result to the client application, etc. the actual difference between the two proposed queries will not be huge. Still, if the same result can be achieved with less cycles, I would go for it. >This sort of suboptimizing is not san appropriate use of anyone's time. Well... IMHO, it depends... Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, others have commented about what the actual purpose and aim might be and how to achieve it. They have a very valid point in stating that in the end the SLA is what matters. Cheers, Jantje. P.S. John, no offence. You're right. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
