Hi Jim, On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Jim Lyons <jlyons4...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Jake Maul <jakem...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> 3) Obviously it'd probably be faster if you weren't using >> SQL_NO_CACHE... guessing you just did that to show us what it's like >> that way? >> >> > Why would SQL_NO_CACHE slow it down? By not checking the cache or storing
Because then it might be possible to return the query from the cache. > the resultset into cache it should be quicker, at least a little bit. > Unless, of course, the query would always return the same result set. But > with count(*) in there it might not. In fact, I believe the count(*) would > prevent MySQL from caching the query in the first place, like using now() - > it's a non-deterministic function. No, it should always return the same thing unless the data in the table changes, so it's perfectly cacheable. -- Baron Schwartz, Director of Consulting, Percona Inc. Our Blog: http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/ Our Services: http://www.percona.com/services.html -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
