On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 10:43:04AM +0100, Chris Faulkner wrote: > I have two very similar queries which I need to execute. They both > have exactly the same from / where conditions. When I execute the > first, it takes about 16 seconds. The second is executed almost > immediately after, it takes 13 seconds. In short, I'd like to know > why the query result isn't being cached and any ideas on how to > improve the execution.
The way to do the type of caching you're talking about, if i understand you correctly, would be to create a temporary table. Specifically, create a temporary table with the results of the second query. Then run a select * on that table (with no where clause), and follow it with a select max(replace(...)) on the same table (no where clause). That guarantees two things: 1- The joins/filters are not parsed and evaluated twice, with the corresponding disk reads. 2- The data is exactly consistent between the two queries. Correct me if i misunderstood your problem. -johnnnnnnnnnn ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
