Search Results

Search found 69200 results on 2768 pages for 'file indexing'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 101/2768 | < Previous Page | 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108  | Next Page >

  • What are some best practises and "rules of thumb" for creating database indexes?

    - by Ash
    I have an app, which cycles through a huge number of records in a database table and performs a number of SQL and .Net operations on records within that database (currently I am using Castle.ActiveRecord on PostgreSQL). I added some basic btree indexes on a couple of the feilds, and as you would expect, the peformance of the SQL operations increased substantially. Wanting to make the most of dbms performance I want to make some better educated choices about what I should index on all my projects. I understand that there is a detrement to performance when doing inserts (as the database needs to update the index, as well as the data), but what suggestions and best practices should I consider with creating database indexes? How do I best select the feilds/combination of fields for a set of database indexes (rules of thumb)? Also, how do I best select which index to use as a clustered index? And when it comes to the access method, under what conditions should I use a btree over a hash or a gist or a gin (what are they anyway?).

    Read the article

  • How to improve performance of non-scalar aggregations on denormalized tables

    - by The Lazy DBA
    Suppose we have a denormalized table with about 80 columns, and grows at the rate of ~10 million rows (about 5GB) per month. We currently have 3 1/2 years of data (~400M rows, ~200GB). We create a clustered index to best suit retrieving data from the table on the following columns that serve as our primary key... [FileDate] ASC, [Region] ASC, [KeyValue1] ASC, [KeyValue2] ASC ... because when we query the table, we always have the entire primary key. So these queries always result in clustered index seeks and are therefore very fast, and fragmentation is kept to a minimum. However, we do have a situation where we want to get the most recent FileDate for every Region, typically for reports, i.e. SELECT [Region] , MAX([FileDate]) AS [FileDate] FROM HugeTable GROUP BY [Region] The "best" solution I can come up to this is to create a non-clustered index on Region. Although it means an additional insert on the table during loads, the hit isn't minimal (we load 4 times per day, so fewer than 100,000 additional index inserts per load). Since the table is also partitioned by FileDate, results to our query come back quickly enough (200ms or so), and that result set is cached until the next load. However I'm guessing that someone with more data warehousing experience might have a solution that's more optimal, as this, for some reason, doesn't "feel right".

    Read the article

  • Enforcing a query in MySql to use a specific index

    - by Hossein
    Hi, I have large table. consisting of only 3 columns (id(INT),bookmarkID(INT),tagID(INT)).I have two BTREE indexes one for each bookmarkID and tagID columns.This table has about 21 Million records. I am trying to run this query: SELECT bookmarkID,COUNT(bookmarkID) AS count FROM bookmark_tag_map GROUP BY tagID,bookmarkID HAVING tagID IN (-----"tagIDList"-----) AND count >= N which takes ages to return the results.I read somewhere that if make an index in which it has tagID,bookmarkID together, i will get a much faster result. I created the index after some time. Tried the query again, but it seems that this query is not using the new index that I have made.I ran EXPLAIN and saw that it is actually true. My question now is that how I can enforce a query to use a specific index? also comments on other ways to make the query faster are welcome. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to recognize what indexes are not used?

    - by tomaszs
    I have a table in MySQL with 7 indexes, most of them are on more than one column. I think here is too much indexes. Is there any way to get statistics of what indexes are used more by all thousands of queries to this database and what are less worthy so I know what index to consider to remove in first place?

    Read the article

  • Lucene and Special Characters

    - by Brandon
    I am using Lucene.Net 2.0 to index some fields from a database table. One of the fields is a 'Name' field which allows special characters. When I perform a search, it does not find my document that contains a term with special characters. I index my field as such: Directory DALDirectory = FSDirectory.GetDirectory(@"C:\Indexes\Name", false); Analyzer analyzer = new StandardAnalyzer(); IndexWriter indexWriter = new IndexWriter(DALDirectory, analyzer, true, IndexWriter.MaxFieldLength.UNLIMITED); Document doc = new Document(); doc.Add(new Field("Name", "Test (Test)", Field.Store.YES, Field.Index.TOKENIZED)); indexWriter.AddDocument(doc); indexWriter.Optimize(); indexWriter.Close(); And I search doing the following: value = value.Trim().ToLower(); value = QueryParser.Escape(value); Query searchQuery = new TermQuery(new Term(field, value)); Searcher searcher = new IndexSearcher(DALDirectory); TopDocCollector collector = new TopDocCollector(searcher.MaxDoc()); searcher.Search(searchQuery, collector); ScoreDoc[] hits = collector.TopDocs().scoreDocs; If I perform a search for field as 'Name' and value as 'Test', it finds the document. If I perform the same search as 'Name' and value as 'Test (Test)', then it does not find the document. Even more strange, if I remove the QueryParser.Escape line do a search for a GUID (which, of course, contains hyphens) it finds documents where the GUID value matches, but performing the same search with the value as 'Test (Test)' still yields no results. I am unsure what I am doing wrong. I am using the QueryParser.Escape method to escape the special characters and am storing the field and searching by the Lucene.Net's examples. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Why does Sql Server recommends creating an index when it already exist?

    - by Pierre-Alain Vigeant
    I ran a very basic query against one of our table and I noticed that the execution plan query processor is recommending that we create an index on a column The query is SELECT SUM(DATALENGTH(Data)) FROM Item WHERE Namespace = 'http://some_url/some_namespace/' After running, I get the following message // The Query Processor estimates that implementing the following index could improve the query cost by 96.7211%. CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [<Name of Missing Index, sysname,>] ON [dbo].[Item] ([Namespace]) My problem is that I already have such index on that column: CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_ItemNamespace] ON [dbo].[Item] ( [Namespace] ASC )WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, DROP_EXISTING = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY] Why is Sql Server recommending me to create such index when it already exist?

    Read the article

  • How to setup Lucene search for a B2B web app?

    - by Bill Paetzke
    Given: 5000 databases (spread out over 5 servers) 1 database per client (so you can infer there are 1000 clients) 2 to 2000 users per client (let's say avg is 100 users per client) Clients (databases) come and go every day (let's assume most remain for at least one year) Let's stay agnostic of language or sql brand, since Lucene (and Solr) have a breadth of support The Question: How would you setup Lucene search so that each client can only search within its database? How would you setup the index(es)? Would you need to add a filter to all search queries? If a client cancelled, how would you delete their (part of the) index? (this may be trivial--not sure yet) Possible Solutions: Make an index for each client (database) Pro: Search is faster (than one-index-for-all method). Indices are relative to the size of the client's data. Con: I'm not sure what this entails, nor do I know if this is beyond Lucene's scope. Have a single, gigantic index with a database_name field. Always include database_name as a filter. Pro: Not sure. Maybe good for tech support or billing dept to search all databases for info. Con: Search is slower (than index-per-client method). Flawed security if query filter removed. For Example: Joel Spolsky said in Podcast #11 that his hosted web app product, FogBugz On-Demand, uses Lucene. He has thousands of on-demand clients. And each client gets their own database. His situation is quite similar to mine. Although, he didn't elaborate on the setup (particularly indices); hence, the need for this question. One last thing: I would also accept an answer that uses Solr (the extension of Lucene). Perhaps it's better suited for this problem. Not sure.

    Read the article

  • SQL Overlapping and Multi-Column Indexes

    - by durilai
    I am attempting to tune some stored procedures and have a question on indexes. I have used the tuning advisor and they recommended two indexes, both for the same table. The issue is one index is for one column and the other is for multiple columns, of which it includes the same column from the first. My question is why and what is the difference? CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [_dta_index_Table1_5_2079723603__K23_K17_K13_K12_K2_K10_K22_K14_K19_K20_K9_K11_5_6_7_15_18] ON [dbo].[Table1] ( [EfctvEndDate] ASC, [StuLangCodeKey] ASC, [StuBirCntryCodeKey] ASC, [StuBirStOrProvncCodeKey] ASC, [StuKey] ASC, [GndrCodeKey] ASC, [EfctvStartDate] ASC, [StuHspncEnctyIndctr] ASC, [StuEnctyMsngIndctr] ASC, [StuRaceMsngIndctr] ASC, [StuBirDate] ASC, [StuBirCityName] ASC ) INCLUDE ( [StuFstNameLgl], [StuLastOrSrnmLgl], [StuMdlNameLgl], [StuIneligSnorImgrntIndctr], [StuExpctdGrdtngClYear] ) WITH (SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, DROP_EXISTING = OFF, ONLINE = OFF) ON [PRIMARY] go CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [_dta_index_Table1_5_2079723603__K23] ON [dbo].[Table1] ( [EfctvEndDate] ASC )WITH (SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, DROP_EXISTING = OFF, ONLINE = OFF) ON [PRIMARY]

    Read the article

  • Tables with no Primary Key

    - by Matt Hamilton
    I have several tables whose only unique data is a uniqueidentifier (a Guid) column. Because guids are non-sequential (and they're client-side generated so I can't use newsequentialid()), I have made a non-primary, non-clustered index on this ID field rather than giving the tables a clustered primary key. I'm wondering what the performance implications are for this approach. I've seen some people suggest that tables should have an auto-incrementing ("identity") int as a clustered primary key even if it doesn't have any meaning, as it means that the database engine itself can use that value to quickly look up a row instead of having to use a bookmark. My database is merge-replicated across a bunch of servers, so I've shied away from identity int columns as they're a bit hairy to get right in replication. What are your thoughts? Should tables have primary keys? Or is it ok to not have any clustered indexes if there are no sensible columns to index that way?

    Read the article

  • Choice of primary index for mysql innoDB

    - by Saif Bechan
    I have an auction website where users can place a bid on a product. Now i have a primary index on the bid table for easy access of the last places bid on the product. This index is just a unique auto incrementing value. During the week this number becomes huge!! I was wondering if this is a good setup for the primary key in an innoDB table. The bids table exist of the following important fields: table: bids fields: user_id,product_id,bid So what i want to do is make the primary of these 3 fields combined. Is this a good idea or is this just too much for innoDB keys.

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER FULL-TEXT INDEX, CONTAINS return empty

    - by max
    Hi, All: I got a issue about full index, any body can help me on this? set up full text index CREATE FULLTEXT INDEX ON dbo.Companies(my table name) ( CompanyName(colum of my table) Language 0X0 ) KEY INDEX IX_Companies_CompanyAlias ON QuestionsDB WITH CHANGE_TRACKING AUTO GO Using CONTAINS to find the matched rows SELECT CompanyId, CompanyName FROM dbo.Companies WHERE CONTAINS(CompanyName,'Micro') All is going well. just just just return empty resultset. And I am sure there is company with CompanyName "Microsoft" in Table Company Much appreciated if anybody does me a favor on this.

    Read the article

  • Use a vector to index a matrix without linear index

    - by David_G
    G'day, I'm trying to find a way to use a vector of [x,y] points to index from a large matrix in MATLAB. Usually, I would convert the subscript points to the linear index of the matrix.(for eg. Use a vector as an index to a matrix in MATLab) However, the matrix is 4-dimensional, and I want to take all of the elements of the 3rd and 4th dimensions that have the same 1st and 2nd dimension. Let me hopefully demonstrate with an example: Matrix = nan(4,4,2,2); % where the dimensions are (x,y,depth,time) Matrix(1,2,:,:) = 999; % note that this value could change in depth (3rd dim) and time (4th time) Matrix(3,4,:,:) = 888; % note that this value could change in depth (3rd dim) and time (4th time) Matrix(4,4,:,:) = 124; Now, I want to be able to index with the subscripts (1,2) and (3,4), etc and return not only the 999 and 888 which exist in Matrix(:,:,1,1) but the contents which exist at Matrix(:,:,1,2),Matrix(:,:,2,1) and Matrix(:,:,2,2), and so on (IRL, the dimensions of Matrix might be more like size(Matrix) = (300 250 30 200) I don't want to use linear indices because I would like the results to be in a similar vector fashion. For example, I would like a result which is something like: ans(time=1) 999 888 124 999 888 124 ans(time=2) etc etc etc etc etc etc I'd also like to add that due to the size of the matrix I'm dealing with, speed is an issue here - thus why I'd like to use subscript indices to index to the data. I should also mention that (unlike this question: Accessing values using subscripts without using sub2ind) since I want all the information stored in the extra dimensions, 3 and 4, of the i and jth indices, I don't think that a slightly faster version of sub2ind still would not cut it..

    Read the article

  • javascript increment index in funciton

    - by mcgrailm
    I'm just trying to figure out how to create an index inside a function so I can keep track of the items its generating and I'm not sure how to do this seems like I should know this.. addLocation(options,location) funciton addLocation(options,location){ $('#list').append('<li class="location"><div>'+location.label+'</div>'+ '<input type="hidden" name="location['+x+'][lat]" value="'+location.lat+'" />'+ '<input type="hidden" name="location['+x+'][lon]" value="'+location.lon+'" />'+ '<input type="hidden" name="location['+x+'][loc]" value="'+location.loc+'" />'+ '<input type="hidden" name="location['+x+'][label]" value="'+location.label+'" />'+ '</li>'); } now normally you have a forloop to help you keep track of things but int this instance I'm not appending items in a loop and I keep getting an error saying x in undefined appreciate any help you can give thanks Mike

    Read the article

  • How do you efficiently bulk index lookups?

    - by Liron Shapira
    I have these entity kinds: Molecule Atom MoleculeAtom Given a list(molecule_ids) whose lengths is in the hundreds, I need to get a dict of the form {molecule_id: list(atom_ids)}. Likewise, given a list(atom_ids) whose length is in the hunreds, I need to get a dict of the form {atom_id: list(molecule_ids)}. Both of these bulk lookups need to happen really fast. Right now I'm doing something like: atom_ids_by_molecule_id = {} for molecule_id in molecule_ids: moleculeatoms = MoleculeAtom.all().filter('molecule =', db.Key.from_path('molecule', molecule_id)).fetch(1000) atom_ids_by_molecule_id[molecule_id] = [ MoleculeAtom.atom.get_value_for_datastore(ma).id() for ma in moleculeatoms ] Like I said, len(molecule_ids) is in the hundreds. I need to do this kind of bulk index lookup on almost every single request, and I need it to be FAST, and right now it's too slow. Ideas: Will using a Molecule.atoms ListProperty do what I need? Consider that I am storing additional data on the MoleculeAtom node, and remember it's equally important for me to do the lookup in the molecule-atom and atom-molecule directions. Caching? I tried memcaching lists of atom IDs keyed by molecule ID, but I have tons of atoms and molecules, and the cache can't fit it. How about denormalizing the data by creating a new entity kind whose key name is a molecule ID and whose value is a list of atom IDs? The idea is, calling db.get on 500 keys is probably faster than looping through 500 fetches with filters, right?

    Read the article

  • Help on understanding multiple columns on an index?

    - by Xaisoft
    Assume I have a table called "table" and I have 3 columns, a, b, and c. What does it mean to have a non-clustered index on columns a,b? Is a nonclustered index on columns a,b the same as a nonclustered index on columns b,a? (Note the order). Also, Is a nonclustered index on column a the same as a nonclustered index on a,c? I was looking at the website sqlserver performance and they had these dmv scripts where it would tell you if you had overlapping indexes and I believe it was saying that having an index on a is the same as a,b, so it is redundant. Is this true about indexes? One last question is why is the clustered index put on the primary key. Most of the time the primary key is not queried against, so shouldn't the clustered index be on the most queried column. I am probably missing something here like having it on the primary key speeds up joins? Great explanations. Should I turn this into a wiki and change the title index explanation?

    Read the article

  • Index Tuning for SSIS tasks

    - by Raj More
    I am loading tables in my warehouse using SSIS. Since my SSIS is slow, it seemed like a great idea to build indexes on the tables. There are no primary keys (and therefore, foreign keys), indexes (clustered or otherwise), constraints, on this warehouse. In other words, it is 100% efficiency free. We are going to put indexes based on usage - by analyzing new queries and current query performance. So, instead of doing it our old fashioned sweat and grunt way of actually reading the SQL statements and execution plans, I thought I'd put the shiny new Database Engine Tuning Advisor to use. I turned SQL logging off in my SSIS package and ran a "Tuning" trace, saved it to a table and analyzed the output in the Tuning Advisor. Most of the lookups are done as: exec sp_executesql N'SELECT [Active], [CompanyID], [CompanyName], [CompanyShortName], [CompanyTypeID], [HierarchyNodeID] FROM [dbo].[Company] WHERE ([CompanyID]=@P1) AND ([StartDateTime] IS NOT NULL AND [EndDateTime] IS NULL)',N'@P1 int',1 exec sp_executesql N'SELECT [Active], [CompanyID], [CompanyName], [CompanyShortName], [CompanyTypeID], [HierarchyNodeID] FROM [dbo].[Company] WHERE ([CompanyID]=@P1) AND ([StartDateTime] IS NOT NULL AND [EndDateTime] IS NULL)',N'@P1 int',2 exec sp_executesql N'SELECT [Active], [CompanyID], [CompanyName], [CompanyShortName], [CompanyTypeID], [HierarchyNodeID] FROM [dbo].[Company] WHERE ([CompanyID]=@P1) AND ([StartDateTime] IS NOT NULL AND [EndDateTime] IS NULL)',N'@P1 int',3 exec sp_executesql N'SELECT [Active], [CompanyID], [CompanyName], [CompanyShortName], [CompanyTypeID], [HierarchyNodeID] FROM [dbo].[Company] WHERE ([CompanyID]=@P1) AND ([StartDateTime] IS NOT NULL AND [EndDateTime] IS NULL)',N'@P1 int',4 and when analyzed, these statements have the reason "Event does not reference any tables". Huh? Does it not see the FROM dbo.Company??!! What is going on here? So, I have multiple questions: How do I get it to capture the actual statement executing in my trace, not what was submitted in a batch? Are there any best practices to follow for tuning performance related to SSIS packages running against SQL Server 2008?

    Read the article

  • Caching linked pages in ASP.NET

    - by n0e
    I'm thinking of a way of creating a local backup for the pages I will be linking to from my site. This would be text-only, similar to Google's 'Copy' feature on the search pages. The idea is to be sure that the pages I would reference to, or cite from, do not dissapear from the Web in the near future. I know I could just keep local copies, but I will have A LOT of citations. What would be the best way of achieving this in ASP.NET? Some custom caching in database?

    Read the article

  • Should I specify both INDEX and UNIQUE INDEX?

    - by Matt Huggins
    On one of my PostgreSQL tables, I have a set of two fields that will be defined as being unique in the table, but will also both be used together when selecting data. Given this, do I only need to define a UNIQUE INDEX, or should I specify an INDEX in addition to the UNIQUE INDEX? This? CREATE UNIQUE INDEX mytable_col1_col2_idx ON mytable (col1, col2); Or this? CREATE UNIQUE INDEX mytable_col1_col2_uidx ON mytable (col1, col2); CREATE INDEX mytable_col1_col2_idx ON mytable (col1, col2);

    Read the article

  • Pruning data for better viewing on loglog graph - Matlab

    - by Geodesic
    Hi Guys, just wondering if anyone has any ideas about an issue I'm having. I have a fair amount of data that needs to be displayed on one graph. Two theoretical lines that are bold and solid are displayed on top, then 10 experimental data sets that converge to these lines are graphed, each using a different identifier (eg the + or o or a square etc). These graphs are on a log scale that goes up to 1e6. The first few decades of the graph (< 1e3) look fine, but as all the datasets converge ( 1e3) it's really difficult to see what data is what. There's over 1000 data points points per decade which I can prune linearly to an extent, but if I do this too much the lower end of the graph will suffer in resolution. What I'd like to do is prune logarithmically, strongest at the high end, working back to 0. My question is: how can I get a logarithmically scaled index vector rather than a linear one? My initial assumption was that as my data is lenear I could just use a linear index to prune, which lead to something like this (but for all decades): //%grab indicies per decade ind12 = find(y >= 1e1 & y <= 1e2); indlow = find(y < 1e2); indhigh = find(y > 1e4); ind23 = find(y >+ 1e2 & y <= 1e3); ind34 = find(y >+ 1e3 & y <= 1e4); //%We want ind12 indexes in this decade, find spacing tot23 = round(length(ind23)/length(ind12)); tot34 = round(length(ind34)/length(ind12)); //%grab ones to keep ind23keep = ind23(1):tot23:ind23(end); ind34keep = ind34(1):tot34:ind34(end); indnew = [indlow' ind23keep ind34keep indhigh']; loglog(x(indnew), y(indnew)); But this causes the prune to behave in a jumpy fashion obviously. Each decade has the number of points that I'd like, but as it's a linear distribution, the points tend to be clumped at the high end of the decade on the log scale. Any ideas on how I can do this?

    Read the article

  • Please help optimizing a long running query (left outer join, with 2 subqueries)

    - by 46and2
    Hi all. The query I need help with is: SELECT d.bn, d.4700, d.4500, ... , p.`Activity Description` FROM ( SELECT temp.bn, temp.4700, temp.4500, .... FROM `tdata` temp GROUP BY temp.bn HAVING (COUNT(temp.bn) = 1) ) d LEFT OUTER JOIN ( SELECT temp2.bn, max(temp2.FPE) AS max_fpe, temp2.`Activity Description` FROM `pdata` temp2 GROUP BY temp2.bn ) p ON p.bn = d.bn; The ... represents other fields that aren't really important to solving this problem. The issue is on the the second subquery - it is not using the index I have created and I am not sure why, it seems to be because of the way TEXT fields are handled. The first subquery uses the index I have created and runs quite snappy, however an explain on the second shows a 'Using temporary; Using filesort'. Please see the indexes I have created in the below table create statements. Can anyone help me optimize this? By way of quick explanation the first subquery is meant to only select records that have unique bn's, the second, while it looks a bit wacky (with the max function there which is not being used in the result set) is making sure that only one record from the right part of the join is included in the result set. My table create statements are CREATE TABLE `tdata` ( `BN` varchar(15) DEFAULT NULL, `4000` varchar(3) DEFAULT NULL, `5800` varchar(3) DEFAULT NULL, .... KEY `BN` (`BN`), KEY `idx_t3010`(`BN`,`4700`,`4500`,`4510`,`4520`,`4530`,`4570`,`4950`,`5000`,`5010`,`5020`,`5050`,`5060`,`5070`,`5100`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 CREATE TABLE `pdata` ( `BN` varchar(15) DEFAULT NULL, `FPE` datetime DEFAULT NULL, `Activity Description` text, .... KEY `BN` (`BN`), KEY `idx_programs_2009` (`BN`,`FPE`,`Activity Description`(100)) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 Thanks!

    Read the article

  • SQLAlchemy custom sorting algorithms when using SQL indexes

    - by David M
    Is it possible to write custom collation functions with indexes in SQLAlchemy? SQLite for example allows specifying the sorting function at a C level as sqlite3_create_collation(). An implementation of some of the Unicode collation algorithm has been provided by James Tauber here, which for example sorts all the "a"'s close together whether they have accents on them or not. Other examples of why this might be useful is for different alphabet orders (languages other than English) and sorting numeric values (sorting 10 after 9 rather than codepoint order.) Is this possible in SQLAlchemy? If not, is it supported by the pysqlite3 or MySQLdb modules, or for any other SQL database modules supported by python for that matter? Any information would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • In SQL, in what situation do we want to Index a field in a table, or 2 fields in a table at the same

    - by Jian Lin
    In SQL, it is obvious that whenever we want to do a search on millions of record, say CustomerID in a Transactios table, then we want to add an index for CustomerID. Is another situation we want to add an index to a field when we need to do inner join or outer join using that field as a criteria? Such as Inner join on t1.custumerID = t2.customerID. Then if we don't have an index on customerID on both tables, we are looking at O(n^2) because we need to loop through the 2 tables sequentially. If we have index on customerID on both tables, then it becomes O( (log n) ^ 2 ) and it is much faster. Any other situation where we want to add an index to a field in a table? What about adding index for 2 fields combined in a table. That is, one index, for 2 fields together?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108  | Next Page >