On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 19:01, Micah wrote: > Just curious, but I'm wondering why you're joining to the messageblks > table as it doesn't appear to have any bearing on the query? > > Why not: > > SELECT DISTINCT physmessage.id, physmessage.messagesize, > messages.seen_flag, physmessage.internal_date > > FROM dbmail_mailboxes mailboxes, dbmail_messages messages, > dbmail_physmessage physmessage > > WHERE mailboxes.owner_idnr='4' AND messages.status<'2' > > AND mailboxes.mailbox_idnr=messages.mailbox_idnr AND > messages.physmessage_id=physmessage.id > > ORDER BY physmessage.id DESC
Thanks, I did not see that. I was thinking I might be getting blind on my own code. It did cause a speedup, but not too big.. ~5-10% it seems. > Not being familiar with the 2.0 schema yet, this might be a dumb comment, > but as it's just a normal join, I don't think you're trying to verify that > physmessage has a mate in messageblks. I too am not familiar with the 2.0 schema yet.. And I do think that some of the stuff that has changed since 1.0 were totally useless. I'm going to get digging to see wether this is true or not. I might also propose a whole new schema, but I do not expect it to be used by others than me. -=Dead2=-
