Bailey Kessing Posted March 11, 2005 Author Posted March 11, 2005 Which is faster in 7...basing a relationship on a calculation field in two tables that concatenates two fields or basing a relationship on those two fields simultaneously between tables as you now can in 7? This will be for very large databases (many millions of records) so speed is very important.
Bailey Kessing Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 Which is faster in 7...basing a relationship on a calculation field in two tables that concatenates two fields or basing a relationship on those two fields simultaneously between tables as you now can in 7? This will be for very large databases (many millions of records) so speed is very important.
Bailey Kessing Posted March 11, 2005 Author Posted March 11, 2005 Which is faster in 7...basing a relationship on a calculation field in two tables that concatenates two fields or basing a relationship on those two fields simultaneously between tables as you now can in 7? This will be for very large databases (many millions of records) so speed is very important.
-Queue- Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 I would think using the individual fields would be faster. But if both calculations can be indexed, then the difference may be negligible. Of course, there is no reason to create the concatenated fields since you can use the multi-criteria relationship and also save a lot of file space, especially over millions of records.
-Queue- Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 I would think using the individual fields would be faster. But if both calculations can be indexed, then the difference may be negligible. Of course, there is no reason to create the concatenated fields since you can use the multi-criteria relationship and also save a lot of file space, especially over millions of records.
-Queue- Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 I would think using the individual fields would be faster. But if both calculations can be indexed, then the difference may be negligible. Of course, there is no reason to create the concatenated fields since you can use the multi-criteria relationship and also save a lot of file space, especially over millions of records.
Ugo DI LUCA Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 Hi, The only resistance of a compound (concanated) calculation is when one of the key of this compound can be empty. You can search for a Matching ID where the second key is empty with a compound calc.
Ugo DI LUCA Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 Hi, The only resistance of a compound (concanated) calculation is when one of the key of this compound can be empty. You can search for a Matching ID where the second key is empty with a compound calc.
Ugo DI LUCA Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 Hi, The only resistance of a compound (concanated) calculation is when one of the key of this compound can be empty. You can search for a Matching ID where the second key is empty with a compound calc.
Recommended Posts
This topic is 7251 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now