> > >Question 2: If not, what would the Insert/Select statement look like
that
> > would copy the records over in sorted order?
> >
> >
> > Tables aren't sorted. Period.
> >
> >
> >
> > Only result-sets can be sorted.
>
> While that is true, strictly speaking, packing data into the same
> physical order as you expect to logically access it is a fairly common
> optimization for data which remains fairly static. Having said that,
> for the 1600 records reffered to here, I doubt there would be any
> observable difference.
As with what Dan said, this is _only_ useful if you can get the engine
to fetch the data in storage order. If not, there's no point.
And when do you actually get this data in "storage order"? Probably
only when doing a fetch on this single table from beginning to end.
And as both of you said: 1600 rows? What's the hassle.
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, NexusDB, Oracle &
MS SQL Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
My thoughts:
http://blog.upscene.com/martijn/
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
