Hi.
You may want to try a combined index (RecordNumber, WordNumber) on
wordindex, because the indexes you have can only restrict on field
(RecordNumber in the EXPLAIN below) e.g.
ALTER TABLE wordindex ADD UNIQUE(RecordNumber, WordNumber);
I presume that the RecordNumber/WordNumber pairs are uni
g it three times
> -Original Message-
> From: René Tegel [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 06 February 2001 14:35
> To: Tim Samshuijzen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: amazingly slow
>
> Tim,
>
> Hmmm... so you are suggesting the format of the query mig
s over time they lose their performance enhancement.
>could that be true?
>
>dan
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Tim Samshuijzen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2001 04:50
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: amazingly slow
>
>
>
&g
Tegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 3:07 PM
>Subject: Re: amazingly slow
>
>
>
>Yep, all requested fields are indexed.
>
>At 02:25 PM 6-2-2001 +0100, you wrote:
>>Tim,
>>Just kidding about the 513 Mb
>>
>>you put an
?
regards,
rene
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Samshuijzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "René Tegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: amazingly slow
Yep, all requested fields are indexed.
At 02:25 PM 6-2-2001 +0100, you
50
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: amazingly slow
Dear Dave,
Thanks for your reply.
(The table actually works with word numbers, as the words
are present in a hash table. I explained it the way I did
because functionally it is the same. So the actual search
is for WordNumber values instead of
Dear Dave,
Here is the output from vmstat 5:
>vmstat 5
procs memoryswap io system
cpu
r b w swpd free buff cache si sobibo incs us sy
id
0 0 0 3936 2980 10568 218856 8 411 33 9 0 3
10
0 0
gards,
rene
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Samshuijzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "René Tegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: amazingly slow
Dear René,
Thanks for your reply.
Oops, the 513 was a typing mistake.
Tim Samshuijzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This still does not tell me why the query is amazingly slow.
What else is happening on the system? what does, say, a vmstat 5 give?
--
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star
Dear René,
Thanks for your reply.
Oops, the 513 was a typing mistake.
And yes, all the requested fields are indexed.
CREATE TABLE wordindex (
WordNumber int(11) NOT NULL,
RecordNumber int(11) NOT NULL,
KEY WordNumber (WordNumber),
KEY RecordNumber (RecordNumber)
);
CREATE TABLE
Dear Dave,
Thanks for your reply.
(The table actually works with word numbers, as the words
are present in a hash table. I explained it the way I did
because functionally it is the same. So the actual search
is for WordNumber values instead of Word values.)
I did the EXPLAIN as you suggested
Tim,
1. i'd remove 1 Mb from your 513 Mb machine... maybe it's an very old edo
simm or something.
2. you put an index on all requested fields (maintable.recordnumber and
wordindex.word) ? I bet not.
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tim Samshuijzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL
Tim Samshuijzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyone out there who wants to save me and our company?
You missed the important first step: EXPLAIN the query.
--
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-pur
13 matches
Mail list logo
