Hello,
Could one not store the total while using the
index
and use select FOUND_ROWS() without
SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS to retrieve the total?
Yes, it could.
It is the optimization that wasn't implemented yet.
(but it's in the TODO)
Once again, thanks for the response.
Could you give an
Hi!
On Dec 04, tk wrote:
Hello,
Thanks for the response.
There is one thing that is not clear however.
Regardless of whether or not I perform the fulltext
search with or without the SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS
keyword, the results that I get are exactly the same.
Also, the notion of
Hi TK,
There was an optimizer bug in MySQL 4.0
This bug is fixed in 4.0.17 (not yet released)
# Fixed bug when the optimiser did not
# take SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS into account
# if LIMIT clause was present. (Bug #1274)
Kind regards
Gunnar
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Sergei, Gunnar, and others,
thank you for your quick responses.
One little mystery remains:
Why does one need to read all the row data (with
SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS) to get the total number of
results when using a limit?
When the index is used to find relevant rows and sort
the results, the
Hi!
On Dec 05, tk wrote:
Hello Sergei, Gunnar, and others,
thank you for your quick responses.
One little mystery remains:
Why does one need to read all the row data (with
SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS) to get the total number of
results when using a limit?
When the index is used to find
Hi,
Yes, you would have similar results with any query that uses
SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS. That's because MySQL has to see how many rows would
be found without the LIMIT. So in your case, it can't just abort the
query after it finds 10 rows. All rows that match the WHERE need to be
found.
You might
Hello,
Thanks for the response.
There is one thing that is not clear however.
Regardless of whether or not I perform the fulltext
search with or without the SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS
keyword, the results that I get are exactly the same.
Also, the notion of stopping after the limit is
reached
