Hi René, everybody!
René Fournier wrote:
> [[...]] However, even if the Index can't fit in memory (4GB of RAM, lots
> free), just reading it from disk should allow sub-millisecond response, no?
No chance!
Of course, performance of disk drives varies, but AFAIK typical values
are in the range of
r [mailto:m...@renefournier.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 2:16 AM
> To: René Fournier
> Cc: mysql
> Subject: Re: Why does this query take so long?
>
> Even weirder, I came back to my laptop a couple hours later. And now the same
> queries are taking 3-10 seconds inste
16 AM
To: René Fournier
Cc: mysql
Subject: Re: Why does this query take so long?
Even weirder, I came back to my laptop a couple hours later. And now the same
queries are taking 3-10 seconds instead of 0.01 seconds. What could be causing
this?
On 2009-12-28, at 1:19 PM, René Fournier wrote:
Even weirder, I came back to my laptop a couple hours later. And now the same
queries are taking 3-10 seconds instead of 0.01 seconds. What could be causing
this?
On 2009-12-28, at 1:19 PM, René Fournier wrote:
> Hmm, weird. I just re-imported the data (after drop/create table, etc.), and
> no
Hmm, weird. I just re-imported the data (after drop/create table, etc.), and
now the spatial queries run fast.
Has anyone seen this sort of thing happen? Maybe the Index got corrupted
somehow, and then MySQL had to do a full table scan (even though EXPLAIN
indicated it would use the Spatial Ind
So just to clarify (hello?), the index which *should* be used (EXPLAIN says so)
and *should* make the query run faster than 4 seconds either isn't used (why?)
or simply doesn't speed up the query (again, why?).
++-+---+---+---+---+-+--+--+-
