>> So, now that we've got all that out of the way, I'm sure you'll agree
>> with me that there are times when you do *not* want to use an index,
>> even if there is one. ;-)
> 
> <g> No.
> 
> Dunno about Oracle, but in SQL Server it's possible (and recommended) to
> make the table into an index that contains, at the leaf levels, all of the
> data in the table. It's called the clustered index.

Oracle provides an "index-organised table" which sounds like it's 
similar. I don't know about "recommended" though - it seems to be more 
for special situations.

I still think if you have a huge table with an index in just one field, 
full-scanning the table would be faster than an index scan if you're 
processing a very large percentage of the table's rows. But apparently 
that's just me. :-}

BTW, what does "<g>" mean? I always thought it was short for "Gail" or 
something, but that doesn't make much sense...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message