On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Claudio Nanni claudio.na...@gmail.com wrote:
An explain of the two statements yields the same plan,
anybody knows if they are actually translated in the same plan?
There is a difference. The IN list is sorted so lookups can be done
as a binary search. A bunch
2009/3/29 Oscar ro4...@gmail.com:
Hi all-
I want to know what the difference between IN and OR is under the hood.
select * from dummy_table where id in (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7);
select * from dummy_table where id=2 or id=3 or id=4 or id=5 or id=6 or
id=7;
I've have thought once the query is
. This message serves for
information purposes only and shall not have any legally binding effect. Given
that e-mails can easily be subject to manipulation, we can not accept any
liability for the content provided.
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:13:10 +
Subject: Re: IN vs. OR on performance
From: poo
An explain of the two statements yields the same plan,
anybody knows if they are actually translated in the same plan?
Claudio
Ian P. Christian wrote:
2009/3/29 Oscar ro4...@gmail.com:
Hi all-
I want to know what the difference between IN and OR is under the hood.
select * from
see your table using the
indexes to perform the query.
- Original Message -
From: YL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: 5.0.1 vs 5.0.15: view performance
Thanks a lot Shawn: After adding index, it's
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:
mysqlselect count(1) from
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
|
++-+---+--+---+--+-+--+--+-+
3 rows in set (0.11 sec)
mysql
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: YL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: 5.0.1 vs 5.0.15: view performance
YL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/30/2005 10:24:24 AM
: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: 5.0.1 vs 5.0.15: view performance
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
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`
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
) 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, 2005 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: 5.0.1 vs 5.0.15: view performance
Marcin Lewandowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/08/2005 05:29:39 PM:
Chuck Herrick napisa(a):
200 - 400 tables is too many.
Is it too many for merge, innodb or both?
Try having one CUSTOMERS table. You know who is logged in, so you can
use that information in a WHERE clause.
Yes,
Chuck Herrick napisa(a):
200 - 400 tables is too many.
Is it too many for merge, innodb or both?
Try having one CUSTOMERS table. You know who is logged in, so you can
use that information in a WHERE clause.
Yes, but If somebody would find a password (maybe using brute-force
attack) to one
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 02:12:36PM -0800, Steve Quezadas wrote:
Anyways, a period of time elapsed and we decided to move to MS-SQL
server for feature reasons, and when we had the MS-SQL ODBC driver
point to the newly created MS-SQL server (roughly same specs), it
was like 50% faster! What
: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 4:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Steve Quezadas
Subject: Re: MySQL vs MS-SQL performance
Steve,
I also experienced the same results you did until I realized that
the MS-SQL connection was using pooled connections and my
use of MySQL wasn't. After I started using persistent
16 matches
Mail list logo
