Re: Optimizing query "WHERE date>0"

2005-09-09 Thread Dan Baker
"Devananda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dan Baker wrote: >> "Eric Bergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>>When you add that index are more than 30% of the rows in the table >>>DateTimeNext>1126215680? >> >> >> There are curre

Re: Optimizing query "WHERE date>0"

2005-09-08 Thread Devananda
Dan Baker wrote: "Eric Bergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] When you add that index are more than 30% of the rows in the table DateTimeNext>1126215680? There are currently 28.53% of the rows that have "DateTimeNext>1126215680" Does this mean something of inter

Re: Optimizing query "WHERE date>0"

2005-09-08 Thread Dan Baker
"Eric Bergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > When you add that index are more than 30% of the rows in the table > DateTimeNext>1126215680? There are currently 28.53% of the rows that have "DateTimeNext>1126215680" Does this mean something of interest? If so, what?

Re: Optimizing query "WHERE date>0"

2005-09-08 Thread Eric Bergen
When you add that index are more than 30% of the rows in the table DateTimeNext>1126215680? Dan Baker wrote: I have lots of tables that are similar in nature: id int(11) PRI NULL auto_increment Name varchar(30) DateTimeNext int(11) The "DateTimeNext" field represents when this records needs

Optimizing query "WHERE date>0"

2005-09-08 Thread Dan Baker
I have lots of tables that are similar in nature: id int(11) PRI NULL auto_increment Name varchar(30) DateTimeNext int(11) The "DateTimeNext" field represents when this records needs attention. A value of zero indicates it is being ignored. There are times when *lots* of records DateTimeNext