Mon, 20 May 2002 08:26:31 -0500, tu as dit :
> [snip] >> How many records do you have in each table? And just how fast do you want >> this query to be? 1.5 seconds may be optimal for a query this large. > Perhaps >> the only thing you could do at this point is beef up your server. > Not that large, I got about 8.000 records in each table. I did put the > body out from the news table, so the news table could be small, and > news_body which I don't request all the time would be the bigger one. > If I do 2 selects, one to fetch info from the news table, and then > another one to fetch bodies, it takes much less time, like 0.05 for each > request. Did I miss something ? > [/snip] > You don't say anything about your hardware, which could be a portion of the > problem. If you combine the two queries you have a total return time of 1.0 > secs, right? The other 0.5 secs (return time varies with time of day, > traffic etc.) is probably processing overhead. Why is getting below 1.5 secs > so important? Just curious... No, it takes 0.08+0.07 (just tried) so it makes it 0.15sec instead of 1.5sec, that's 10 times more... 0.15 is ok for a huge site, 1.5 isn't (to me). (I said 0.05sec, not 0.5sec :-) -- Fabien Penso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | LinuxFr a toujours besoin de : http://perso.LinuxFr.org/penso/ | http://linuxFr.org/dons/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
