Chris Hemmings wrote:
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hi Chris,
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Dan Buettner wrote:
Chris, a couple of thoughts -
First, your index on the section is doing you no good (at this time)
since
all the values are the same. You may already know that, but thought
I'd
mention
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hi Chris,
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Dan Buettner wrote:
Chris, a couple of thoughts -
First, your index on the section is doing you no good (at this
time) since
all the values are the same. You may
Hello,
I have a table, currently holding 128,978 rows... In this table, I have a
section column (int) and a price column (int). Every row has a section of 1
currently, every row has a price, ranging from 1 to 10,000.
I have an index on both columns separately.
Have a look at these two
Jeremy Cole wrote:
Hi Chris,
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Hello,
I have a table, currently holding 128,978 rows... In this table, I
have a section column (int) and a price column (int). Every row has
a section of 1 currently, every row has a price, ranging from 1 to
10,000.
I have an index
. This likely takes a little bit of
time. How many rows do you have with price = 1? It would have to scan over
that many before it could start satisfying your query, if you think about
it.
HTH,
Dan
On 9/10/07, Chris Hemmings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have a table, currently holding
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hi Chris,
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Dan Buettner wrote:
Chris, a couple of thoughts -
First, your index on the section is doing you no good (at this time)
since
all the values are the same. You may already know that, but thought I'd
mention it.
Second, my theory on why
Hello there!
If I have a table with 100,000 records in and I have two columns in the
table, one an ID field (int) numbered 1 to 100,000 that is indexed etc. The
other field is a text field with say 100 words in each row.
What would produce the fastest search if I wanted to search for all
