That is the entire sql statement - I didn't think I needed to list the 1500 ints that are in the in clause.
Also want to mention that I ran explain on it, and it is using the index on event_id. On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Michael Dykman <mdyk...@gmail.com> wrote: > You would have to show us the whole sql statement but often 'in' clauses can > be refactored into equivalent joins which tend to improve performance > tremendously. > > - michael dykman > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Larry Martell <larry.mart...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I have a table that has 2.5 million rows and 9 columns that are all >> int except for 2 varchar(255) - i.e. not that big of a table. I am >> executing a delete from that table like this: >> >> delete from cdsem_event_message_idx where event_id in (....) >> >> The in clause has around 1,500 items in it. event_id is an int, and >> there is an index on event_id. This statement is taking 1 hour and 5 >> minutes to run. There is nothing else hitting the database at that >> time, and the machine it's running on is 97% idle and has plenty of >> free memory. This seems extremely excessive to me. I would guess it's >> because of the in clause. Is there some better way to do a delete like >> this? >> >> -- >> MySQL General Mailing List >> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql >> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql >> > > > > -- > - michael dykman > - mdyk...@gmail.com > > May the Source be with you. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
