h ASC/DESC on an equivalent query I just tried. So maybe
something is making DISTINCT + reverse index scan slow even if it's not
packed...
Matt
- Original Message -
From: "Vadim P."
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:15 PM
Subject: "ORDER DESC" vs. "ORDER ASC&quo
--- Original Message -
From: "Vadim P."
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:15 PM
Subject: "ORDER DESC" vs. "ORDER ASC" exec time
> Hi all,
>
> Just noticed that a simple query that returns only 14 rows is 10X
slower
> when "ORDER .. DESC" i
ssage -
From: Donny Simonton
To: 'Vadim P.' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:34 PM
Subject: RE: "ORDER DESC" vs. "ORDER ASC" exec time
Personally, it's an unexpected flaw that I hope one day will be fixed. But
I'm not holding my
ent to get accurate numbers.
Donny
> -Original Message-
> From: Vadim P. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:16 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: "ORDER DESC" vs. "ORDER ASC" exec time
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just noticed th
Hi all,
Just noticed that a simple query that returns only 14 rows is 10X slower
when "ORDER .. DESC" is used compared to "ORDER .. ASC".
The table has about 700,000 records, indexed on the field the table is
being ordered by.
Is this expected behavior?
MySQL 4.0.18 running under OpenBSD 3.4
