Mark Mielke wrote:
>saved - we're talking about 154 Kbytes saved on both those indices
>combined. Minor? Major? I bet I wouldn't notice unless my database
>requirements used up all RAM, and even then I'm suspecting it wouldn't
>matter except for border line cases (like all pages required for
>everything else happened to equal 4 Gbytes near exactly).
There is always only so much of 1st level and 2nd level cache; for those
the savings might well make a difference, even on multigigabyte
databases.
--
Sincerely, Stephen R. van den Berg.
Life is that brief interlude between nothingness and eternity.
