I found it interesting. Thanks Eric.
>>(reconstructed from archives i accidentally deleted the copy in my mailbox
>>>Daniel Clark writes:
>>>I don't see how LIMIT would make a difference. LAST_INSERT_ID() only
>>>returns one record.
>>>But it's worth trying in a big loop to get timing numbers
(reconstructed from archives i accidentally deleted the copy in my mailbox
Daniel Clark writes:
I don't see how LIMIT would make a difference. LAST_INSERT_ID() only
returns one record.
But it's worth trying in a big loop to get timing numbers.
Well, I decided to test this all out and see what ha
I don't see how LIMIT would make a difference. LAST_INSERT_ID() only returns one
record.
But it's worth trying in a big loop to get timing numbers.
>>I have a rather simple straightforward question that I was not able to find
>>in any of the documentation.
>>I am in the process of writing an
LAST_INSERT_ID is connection-specific, not table-specific. When you say,
SELECT LAST_INSERT_ID() FROM foo;
you are asking for the LAST_INSERT_ID to be repeated once for each row of
table foo. This is analogous to
SELECT NOW() FROM foo;
or
SELECT 2 FROM foo;
Adding a LIMIT would work, but
hanks.
>
> Chris.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Davey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:00 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Optimizing Queries
>
>
> Hello Chris,
>
> Tuesday, March 9, 2004, 4:38:00 PM, you wrot
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Optimizing Queries
Hello Chris,
Tuesday, March 9, 2004, 4:38:00 PM, you wrote:
CF> I'm trying to determine the best way to optimize the query below.
CF> Right now it is taking around 9mins and we need it to take n
Why does it only use the one index?
Chris.
-Original Message-
From: Richard Davey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Optimizing Queries
Hello Chris,
Tuesday, March 9, 2004, 4:38:00 PM, you wrote:
CF> I'm t
> Chris,
> Is it faster if you remove the 'IS NOT NULL'? I know that's not the >
> results
> you want, but we have found that is NOT NULL will do a full scan. But
we
> normally use it with a join. Since you are using one table, I'm not
sure
> how it would affect it.
>
> Donny
This is an intere
Hello Chris,
Tuesday, March 9, 2004, 4:38:00 PM, you wrote:
CF> I'm trying to determine the best way to optimize the query below. Right now
CF> it is taking around 9mins and we need it to take no more than 30 seconds (we
CF> can get it under 30s on MS SQL):
CF> | 1 | SIMPLE | speedlink |
Chris,
Is it faster if you remove the 'IS NOT NULL'? I know that's not the results
you want, but we have found that is NOT NULL will do a full scan. But we
normally use it with a join. Since you are using one table, I'm not sure
how it would affect it.
Donny
> -Original Message-
> From
Jim Bayers wrote:
>
> I have a non-profit site that uses mysql. I need to optimize two queries so
> they won't put such a load on the mysql server. If I don't lighten the
> load, they've treatened to kick us off.
Check the manual chaper about optimizations, especially about EXPLAIN
command. Th
11 matches
Mail list logo
