On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:38:27 -0500, Francis wrote:
> If I do a select to get the log for this date 2006-01-01 :
> Select * from mytable where mydate => '2006-01-01' and mydate <=
> '2006-01-01'.
>
> Do you think is more faster to do on table with have only one date or is
> the same think if I do
In the last episode (Aug 25), Patrick Crowley said:
> I'm running 3.23.52 locally, but I just noticed my production server
> is running 4.0.12.
>
> Given the complexity of this query, should I use subqueries instead
> of joins? Would that make any difference?
The subquery equivalent to your joins
I'm running 3.23.52 locally, but I just noticed my production server is
running 4.0.12.
Given the complexity of this query, should I use subqueries instead of
joins? Would that make any difference?
Best,
Patrick
> What version of mysql is this? If you're running 3.23, does 4.0.14 do the
> same
In the last episode (Aug 25), Patrick Crowley said:
> I just tried that, but with mixed results.
>
> Like before, when I added an index on publish, I get a 'range' join, but
> it's still doing filesort.
>
> > | theater | range | status_publish | 1 | NULL | 4279 | where used; Using filesort
>
> A
I just tried that, but with mixed results.
Like before, when I added an index on publish, I get a 'range' join, but
it's still doing filesort.
> | theater | range | status_publish | 1 | NULL | 4279 | where used; Using
filesort
Any way around that?
Best,
Patrick
> An index on t (publish,photo,n
In the last episode (Aug 25), Patrick Crowley said:
> Hi all!
>
> I'm trying to optimize the statement below, but I can't figure out why this
> query is still doing an ALL join with a filesort.
>
> There are several indexes on both my main table ('t'), and all the tables
> I'm trying to join. (I
