1.9k views

Consider a relational table $r$ with sufficient number of records, having attributes $A_1, A_2, \dots ,A_n$ and let $1 \leq p \leq n$. Two queries $Q1$ and $Q2$ are given below.

• $Q1: \pi_{A_1, \dots ,A_p} \left(\sigma_{A_p=c}\left(r\right)\right)$ where $c$ is a constant
• $Q2: \pi_{A_1, \dots ,A_p} \left(\sigma_{c_1 \leq A_p \leq c_2}\left(r\right)\right)$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are constants.

The database can be configured to do ordered indexing on $A_p$ or hashing on $A_p$. Which of the following statements is TRUE?

1. Ordered indexing will always outperform hashing for both queries
2. Hashing will always outperform ordered indexing for both queries
3. Hashing will outperform ordered indexing on $Q1$, but not on $Q2$
4. Hashing will outperform ordered indexing on $Q2$, but not on $Q1$
edited | 1.9k views

(C) Hashing works well on the 'equal' queries, while ordered indexing works well better on range queries too. For ex consider B+ Tree, once you have searched a key in B+ tree , you can find range of values via the block pointers pointing to another block of values on the leaf node level.

edited by
+1

Have you mistakenly written the word "too" in the statement "Hashing works well on the 'equal' queries, while ordered indexing works well better on range queries too"

0

Hey Actually I am not getting the language

Hashing will outperform ordered indexing on Q1??

## Outperform? == not working fine

Here hashing will be work fine for same value data. while B+ tree works for sequential as well as duplicate data.

+1
outperform == perform better.

Typically, ordered indexing is used unless it is known in advance that range queries will be infrequent, in which case hashing is used like Q2:πA1,…,Ap(σc1≤Ap≤c2(r)) . Hash organizations are particularly useful for temporary files created during query processing, if lookups on a key value are required and no ranges queries will be performed like Q1:πA1,…,Ap(σAp=c(r)).

c is correct

1
2
3
4
5
6