Re: Query question
From: Gregg (anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 06/11/04
- Next message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Sorting records by week number"
- Previous message: Matthias Klaey: "Re: Mod"
- In reply to: Van T. Dinh: "Re: Query question"
- Next in thread: Van T. Dinh: "Re: Query question"
- Reply: Van T. Dinh: "Re: Query question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:57:03 -0700
I did use SQL Server's Query Analyzer, that's Analyzer
with a "z", and got the no tunable tables. On the comment
of John's, I replied to it and said, it make s no
difference if the table is joined or not, the runtime is
the same. Thanks for the help so far. Is there anything
else you can suggest?
>-----Original Message-----
>No. I meant the SQL Server's Query Analyser, not the
Access Analyser.
>
>I agreed with John's assessment, especially if you run
it as a JET Query
>since one of the Tables in not joined (Cartersian
product) and it is likely
>that lot more data got to go down the wires so that JET
can select the
>suitable rows.
>
>--
>HTH
>Van T. Dinh
>MVP (Access)
>
>
>"Gregg" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:1aed901c44f3d$f263e990$a501280a@phx.gbl...
>> I ran the 2nd query through the Query Analyzer and it
>> said that the query didn't have any tunable tables?
>> Any more ideas? I've set up indexes on all the tables,
>> I've tried joining the 3rd table and I've tried
>> restructuring the query with different joins. Whatever
I
>> do it still runs the same amount of time.
>
>
>.
>
- Next message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Sorting records by week number"
- Previous message: Matthias Klaey: "Re: Mod"
- In reply to: Van T. Dinh: "Re: Query question"
- Next in thread: Van T. Dinh: "Re: Query question"
- Reply: Van T. Dinh: "Re: Query question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|