RE: Index not used with GROUP BY? (bug?)

2001-11-16 Thread Keith C. Ivey
On 15 Nov 2001, at 22:32, Carsten H. Pedersen wrote: > > Thanks for the response, but I think you missed the key > > collection_field_value right under the primary key above. > > You're right -- Sorry. Have you tried COUNT'ing something > other than *? i.e. document_id or resource_id? I tried

RE: Index not used with GROUP BY?

2001-11-15 Thread Carsten H. Pedersen
> On 15 Nov 2001, at 21:59, Carsten H. Pedersen wrote: > > > > PRIMARY KEY > > > (`collection_id`,`document_id`,`tcml_field_id`,`order_number`), > > > KEY `collection_field_value` > > > (`collection_id`,`tcml_field_id`,`value`(12)), > > > KEY `value` (`value`(12)), > > > KEY `resource_

RE: Index not used with GROUP BY?

2001-11-15 Thread Keith C. Ivey
On 15 Nov 2001, at 21:59, Carsten H. Pedersen wrote: > > PRIMARY KEY > > (`collection_id`,`document_id`,`tcml_field_id`,`order_number`), > > KEY `collection_field_value` > > (`collection_id`,`tcml_field_id`,`value`(12)), > > KEY `value` (`value`(12)), > > KEY `resource_id` (`resource_i

RE: Index not used with GROUP BY?

2001-11-15 Thread Carsten H. Pedersen
> I'm trying to keep a table of summary statistics for another table, > because I expected that generating the counts would take a while. > But I never expected the query to take hours, as it does. On > examination, I see that the query is not using an index, even > though the table has an index

Index not used with GROUP BY?

2001-11-15 Thread Keith C. Ivey
I'm trying to keep a table of summary statistics for another table, because I expected that generating the counts would take a while. But I never expected the query to take hours, as it does. On examination, I see that the query is not using an index, even though the table has an index on the th