As I know, IN sometimes invoke unmormal index.
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Baron Schwartz ba...@xaprb.com wrote:
Simon,
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Simon J Mudd sjm...@pobox.com wrote:
per...@elem.com (Perrin Harkins) writes:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Simon J Mudd
This is in 5.0.68 and 5.1.34.
I'm trying to cleanup some old data in a table which looks like the following:
CREATE TABLE `transaction_history` (
`customer_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
`transaction_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
`first_timestamp` datetime NOT NULL
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Simon J Mudd sjm...@pobox.com wrote:
So is the format of the DELETE FROM .. WHERE ... IN ( ... ) clause I
propose valid and SHOULD the optimiser recognise this and be expected
to just find the 2 rows by searching on the primary key?
Not according to the docs:
per...@elem.com (Perrin Harkins) writes:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Simon J Mudd sjm...@pobox.com wrote:
So is the format of the DELETE FROM .. WHERE ... IN ( ... ) clause I
propose valid and SHOULD the optimiser recognise this and be expected
to just find the 2 rows by searching on
Simon,
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Simon J Mudd sjm...@pobox.com wrote:
per...@elem.com (Perrin Harkins) writes:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Simon J Mudd sjm...@pobox.com wrote:
So is the format of the DELETE FROM .. WHERE ... IN ( ... ) clause I
propose valid and SHOULD the
