Re: 5.0.1 vs 5.0.15: view performance

2005-10-31 Thread Jeremiah Gowdy
XPLAIN now, you can see your table using the indexes to perform the query. - Original Message - From: "YL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:16 PM Subject: Re: 5.0.1 vs 5.0.15: view performance Thanks a lot Shaw

Re: 5.0.1 vs 5.0.15: view performance

2005-10-30 Thread YL
se_unit` ( . `unit_id` mediumint(8) unsigned NOT NULL default '0', . PRIMARY KEY (`unit_id`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 Thanks again - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: YL Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com Sent: Sunday, October 30,

Re: 5.0.1 vs 5.0.15: view performance

2005-10-30 Thread SGreen
As I suspected, you have no indexes. You didn't even define a primary key (PK). For each table, decide which column or combination of columns you can use to uniquely identify each row. Make that your PRIMARY KEY for each table. For other columns or combinations of columns you frequently use in

Re: 5.0.1 vs 5.0.15: view performance

2005-10-30 Thread YL
Thanks Shawn for the help: The same query took 2min less than before on 5.0.15 after using inner join. Is what you ask: mysql> show create table address\G; *** 1. row *** Table: address Create Table: CREATE TABLE `address` ( `city` varchar(4

Re: 5.0.1 vs 5.0.15: view performance

2005-10-30 Thread SGreen
| 1444 | | > | 1 | SIMPLE | t0| ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL| > NULL | 1456 | Using where | > ++-+---+------+-------+--+- > +--+--+-+ > 3 rows in set (0.11 sec) > > mysql> > > > --

Re: 5.0.1 vs 5.0.15: view performance

2005-10-30 Thread YL
1444 | | | 1 | SIMPLE | t0| ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL| NULL | 1456 | Using where | ++-+---+--+---+--+-+--+--+-+ 3 rows in set (0.11 sec) mysql> - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "YL" <[EMAIL PROTECT

Re: 5.0.1 vs 5.0.15: view performance

2005-10-30 Thread Paul DuBois
At 15:53 -0500 10/30/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "YL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/30/2005 10:24:24 AM: Dear list, I need some inputs/help on my finding below: 5.0.15 make my view (below) almost useless compare with 5.0.1-alpha: with the same data set, 5.0.15 took 18min but 5.0.1 took

Re: 5.0.1 vs 5.0.15: view performance

2005-10-30 Thread SGreen
"YL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/30/2005 10:24:24 AM: > Dear list, I need some inputs/help on my finding below: > > 5.0.15 make my view (below) almost useless compare with 5.0.1-alpha: > > with the same data set, 5.0.15 took 18min but 5.0.1 took 6.3sec to get > the result: > mysql>select cou

5.0.1 vs 5.0.15: view performance

2005-10-30 Thread YL
Dear list, I need some inputs/help on my finding below: 5.0.15 make my view (below) almost useless compare with 5.0.1-alpha: with the same data set, 5.0.15 took 18min but 5.0.1 took 6.3sec to get the result: mysql>select count(1) from unit_address; +--+ | count(1) | +--+ | 143