Quote:
Originally Posted by pootle flump
The point here though is that number of rows read <> the number of rows processed.
|
May be it's a terminology issue, but for me "reading" and "processing" here means the same thing. I understand perfectly what you (and Ben Gan) say, but still I'm a bit uncomfortable with the perfect exponent on the benchmark diagram. I'm going to run some tests for myself when there's a slow day in my schedule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pootle flump
(the N being the number of rows in your outer table).
|
Not table, partition {as in "OVER (PARTITION BY...)"}. In the example that kicked off this thread we were aggregating data by customer ID. The formula, of course, still stands.