On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 05:03:35PM +0100, Harald Fuchs wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> gerald_clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Matt W wrote:
>
> >> Hi Jeremy,
> >>
> >> Sorry, it seems like I'm saying this a lot lately. Is it not true that
> >> if the whole table will fit in [f
Harald Fuchs wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
gerald_clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matt W wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Sorry, it seems like I'm saying this a lot lately. Is it not true that
if the whole table will fit in [free] RAM, that the OS will cache the
file data and there is no
Matt W wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Sorry, it seems like I'm saying this a lot lately. Is it not true that
if the whole table will fit in [free] RAM, that the OS will cache the
file data and there is no need for a RAM disk. I don't really see how
performance would be any different than using a RAM disk. E
ySQL 4's query cache! :-) Have you thought about this? Or do
your queries differ too much that the cache can't be used?
Hope this helps.
Matt
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremy Zawodny"
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: Strategies for optimizing a
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 08:45:08PM -0500, Jonathan Terhorst wrote:
>
> I could have sworn I posted this once before, but apparently it got
> lost somewhere. Apologies if you're seeing this twice:
>
> I'm wondering what I can do with MySQL to optimize reads (SELECTs)
> on a read-only table where da
