Chris Hemmings wrote:
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hi Chris,
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Dan Buettner wrote:
Chris, a couple of thoughts -
First, your index on the section is doing you no good (at this time)
since
all the values are the same. You may already know that, but thought
I'd
mention it.
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hi Chris,
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Dan Buettner wrote:
Chris, a couple of thoughts -
First, your index on the section is doing you no good (at this
time) since
all the values are the same. You may already know that, but
The results of an EXPLAIN have a lot to do with the data which is
actually on the system. In this case, it seems to hinge on the
distribution of your 'price' attribute.. how many records on your
system? and what is the general distribution of the price attribute?
(how many distinct values)
On
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hi Chris,
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Dan Buettner wrote:
Chris, a couple of thoughts -
First, your index on the section is doing you no good (at this
time) since
all the values are the same. You may
Hello,
I have a table, currently holding 128,978 rows... In this table, I have a
section column (int) and a price column (int). Every row has a section of 1
currently, every row has a price, ranging from 1 to 10,000.
I have an index on both columns separately.
Have a look at these two
Hi Chris,
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Hello,
I have a table, currently holding 128,978 rows... In this table, I have a
section column (int) and a price column (int). Every row has a section of 1
currently, every row has a price, ranging from 1 to 10,000.
I have an index on both columns
Jeremy Cole wrote:
Hi Chris,
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Hello,
I have a table, currently holding 128,978 rows... In this table, I
have a section column (int) and a price column (int). Every row has
a section of 1 currently, every row has a price, ranging from 1 to
10,000.
I have an index on
Chris, a couple of thoughts -
First, your index on the section is doing you no good (at this time) since
all the values are the same. You may already know that, but thought I'd
mention it.
Second, my theory on why query #1 is faster - if all your prices range from
1 up, and you're querying for
Dan Buettner wrote:
Chris, a couple of thoughts -
First, your index on the section is doing you no good (at this time) since
all the values are the same. You may already know that, but thought I'd
mention it.
Second, my theory on why query #1 is faster - if all your prices range from
1 up,
Hi Chris,
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Dan Buettner wrote:
Chris, a couple of thoughts -
First, your index on the section is doing you no good (at this time)
since
all the values are the same. You may already know that, but thought I'd
mention it.
Second, my theory on why query #1 is faster - if
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hi Chris,
Chris Hemmings wrote:
Dan Buettner wrote:
Chris, a couple of thoughts -
First, your index on the section is doing you no good (at this time)
since
all the values are the same. You may already know that, but thought I'd
mention it.
Second, my theory on why
11 matches
Mail list logo