Terry Yapt wrote: > You are right. I have noted that wrong query because you have wrote > about timing of both queries but, if queries give us different results, > then the 'timing' will be different and not comparable either. >
Exactly right, and that was one problem I had with the test data - because it was being created randomly, it took a little while to verify via simpler SQL queries that the answers coming back were in fact correct and that the other queries were right. > Glad to see we are got the best with the LEFT JOIN approach. If I have > another crazy idea I will tell you. > Great :) I think probably the way forward is to use the current statement we have, which seems to be good enough (on my test data it takes about five seconds to complete over a million documents; I don't consider that to be quite good enough, but a. there is still all the start-up overhead in there which will account for some of that and b. I suspect a real workload is going to be kinder to the query than the not-very-random random data inserted into my test db). The plan then would be to get 0.4 out relatively quickly with the new store, and start trying to build some real-life mail loads in the store database and try queries against that. I think for most users the performance will be fine with 0.4. Thanks, Alex. _______________________________________________ Bongo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/bongo-devel
