IUBio GIL .. BIOSCI/Bionet News .. Biosequences .. Software .. FTP

performance of field-specified query vs. "follow"

Dave Matthews matthews at GREENGENES.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
Sat Jun 5 18:42:18 EST 1999


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




More information about the Acedb mailing list

Send comments to us at archive@iubioarchive.bio.net