"Michael Schoen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i?m actually developing a performance criticial system where I need to > index a huge amount of protocoll data. > > These data are already in a chronological order, so if I push the data > one by one in the database I will never need an ORDER BY syntax, `cause > mysql already stores the data the right way. That?s tweaking, isn?t it > ;) > > Unfortunatly I need more than 2000 inserts/sec, so simple inserts are > just too slow. Therefore I used that WONDERFUL multiple insert statement > and the speed was no problem any more. > > BUT with the multiple insert statment the chronological order will be > lost and I?ll need the ORDER BY syntax again. And the query-speed goes > down to not usable ;( > > To be honest, I don?t really see a reason WHY the chronological ORDER is > lost this way, but maybe this problem could also be solved with a simple > trick <g>
There is no any internal order in the table. So, if you want to be sure that rows are retrieved in the particular order, you should use ORDER BY in your queries. -- For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita This email is sponsored by Ensita.net http://www.ensita.net/ __ ___ ___ ____ __ / |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / Egor Egorov / /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] /_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ MySQL AB / Ensita.net <___/ www.mysql.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
