Re: Large fields vs. performance

2001-01-30 Thread Artem Koutchine
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "mySQL Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 4:35 PM Subject: Re: Large fields vs. performance > > Could be just parania. Several time a second is not much. My guess > > is that you'll be fine. If it gets

RE: Large fields vs. performance

2001-01-30 Thread Sander Pilon
> > > Could be just parania. Several time a second is not much. My guess > > is that you'll be fine. If it gets slower upgrade your hardware or > > reconfigure your OS or/and FS or/and MySQL. Anyway, my string > > opinion is that you should split the table. As i said before that > > we've > > been

Re: Large fields vs. performance

2001-01-30 Thread Torkil Grindstein
> Could be just parania. Several time a second is not much. My guess > is that you'll be fine. If it gets slower upgrade your hardware or > reconfigure your OS or/and FS or/and MySQL. Anyway, my string > opinion is that you should split the table. As i said before that > we've > been doing for yea

RE: Large fields vs. performance

2001-01-30 Thread Sander Pilon
> > > René Tegel wrote: > > > > > > This is a very good idea, and in fact the only workable way. > > > Your performance will not lower when retrieving the documents, > cause those > > > fields are indexed. > > > Your memory use will decrease as well, since the file cache does > not have to > > >

Re: Large fields vs. performance

2001-01-30 Thread Artem Koutchine
> René Tegel wrote: > > > > This is a very good idea, and in fact the only workable way. > > Your performance will not lower when retrieving the documents, cause those > > fields are indexed. > > Your memory use will decrease as well, since the file cache does not have to > > cache a big table whe

Re: Large fields vs. performance

2001-01-30 Thread Torkil Grindstein
René Tegel wrote: > > This is a very good idea, and in fact the only workable way. > Your performance will not lower when retrieving the documents, cause those > fields are indexed. > Your memory use will decrease as well, since the file cache does not have to > cache a big table when searching.

Re: Large fields vs. performance

2001-01-30 Thread Artem Koutchine
" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 12:56 PM Subject: Large fields vs. performance > Hi. > > I have a table of approx 10 columns and 12000 rows, continously > growing (wrt rows). > > One of the columns is of type mediumtext, and contains html > docum

Large fields vs. performance

2001-01-30 Thread Torkil Grindstein
Hi. I have a table of approx 10 columns and 12000 rows, continously growing (wrt rows). One of the columns is of type mediumtext, and contains html documents of sizes up to one megabyte. Most queries to this table does not include the document field, but take still almost a minute. On a copy of