I think I got a reply of some sort to this but no satisfaction.
Something like "The user is supposed to be able to optimize queries
himself." I don't buy it. My users are a long way from being this
sophisticated.
I could write this code myself. :
input:
query find sequence probe = *
code:
if COUNT Probe < COUNT Sequence
find probe; follow sequence
else
query find sequence probe = *
Granted I haven't actually looked into the code to see where this would
plug in. But I'm mystified why this would be hard, or not desirable.
- Dave
> To: acedb at net.bio.net> Subject: performance of field-specified query vs. "follow"
> Date: 27 Jul 1998 19:22:08 -0700
>> I've been noticing how fast the "follow" query command seems, relative to
> querying on the value of a field. And that a query on any XREF'd field can
> be framed either way. So I decided to run a quantitative comparison in
> tace. See below. Result is that "follow" is a heck of a lot faster.
>> My question is, could the code be made to check whether a queried field is
> XREF'd, and if so automatically use a "follow" approach?
>> acedb> find probe
> 1 sec
> // Found 8169 objects in this class
>> acedb> follow sequence
> 7 sec
> // Found 1636 objects
>> acedb> query find sequence probe [64570 Sequence objects]
> 150 sec
> // Found 1636 objects
