> This is stupid advice.
Don't hold back, Gene!
Tell us how you really feel. LOL
I think the point of the article was to help remind people to think about
indexes before just using them without understanding the effects on
performance. Having a rule of thumb like 5 indexes per table would make me
stop and consider whether a 6th index was required. If so, then great. But
at least I would have thought about the benefits and negatives before doing
it. Frankly, reminding people to consider the consequences of their actions
is NEVER stupid advice.
Paul H. Tarver
Email: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: ProfoxTech [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gene
Wirchenko
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:15 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [NF] How many indexes do you need?
At 09:43 2018-10-09, "Paul H. Tarver" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Good article. I have to admit sometimes I cheat and have more than five
>indexes with one column each when I'm optimizing Rushmore on temporary
>cursors, but otherwise, this is really good advice.
This is stupid advice. An arbitrary number of indexes is not
correct. Instead, determine how many indexes are required and create
that many.
>Keeping it simple, keeps it fast.
But it might not meet the needs of the users.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
