Page History
...
One of the points identified in the previous section is that snapshot queries and database views are less likely to perform as well as direct access to database tables. As shown in
| Caption reference | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Caption label | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Testing Performance of Queries on Snapshot Tables and Snapshot Views |
Snapshot Table | Snapshot Views
| Performance Ratio | |||||||||||
| Read 1 million rows from relationship snapshot | 1.52 | 11.06 | 15% | ||||||||||
| Read 1 million rows from description snapshot | 3.57 | 12.73 | 28% | ||||||||||
| Read all rows from concept snapshot | 0.66 | 2.45 | 26% | ||||||||||
| Total time for all operations above | 5.75 | 25.74 | 22% | ||||||||||
| Advanced test reading 10,000 relationships and with joins to descriptions and language reference set for the fully specified names of source, type and target concept | 2.34 | 4.70 | 50% |
Based on these findings the most effective way to optimize access to a snapshot view, is to replace the use of database views with snapshot tables. Representing the a snapshot with tables, rather than using a database view, adds roughly 2.6 Gb to the storage requirements for the example database.
...
Overview
Content Tools
Apps