This is stupid advice.
Don't hold back, Gene! Tell us how you really feel. LOL
I think the point of the article was to help remind people to think about indexes before just using them without understanding the effects on performance. Having a rule of thumb like 5 indexes per table would make me stop and consider whether a 6th index was required. If so, then great. But at least I would have thought about the benefits and negatives before doing it. Frankly, reminding people to consider the consequences of their actions is NEVER stupid advice.
Paul H. Tarver Email: paul@tpcqpc.com
-----Original Message----- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Gene Wirchenko Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:15 PM To: profoxtech@leafe.com Subject: RE: [NF] How many indexes do you need?
At 09:43 2018-10-09, "Paul H. Tarver" paul@tpcqpc.com wrote:
Good article. I have to admit sometimes I cheat and have more than five indexes with one column each when I'm optimizing Rushmore on temporary cursors, but otherwise, this is really good advice.
This is stupid advice. An arbitrary number of indexes is not correct. Instead, determine how many indexes are required and create that many.
Keeping it simple, keeps it fast.
But it might not meet the needs of the users.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[excessive quoting removed by server]