Hi
mos wrote:
If I have a large table with 20 million rows, is it going to be faster
to use one delete statement like:
delete from mytable where rcdid in(20,300,423, 9)
to delete 10-100 random records using the primary index "RcdId"
or should I use separate delete statements for eac
If I have a large table with 20 million rows, is it going to be faster to
use one delete statement like:
delete from mytable where rcdid in(20,300,423, 9)
to delete 10-100 random records using the primary index "RcdId"
or should I use separate delete statements for each RcdId as in:
On 11 Feb 2002, at 18:27, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> Nope, not for MyISAM it hasn't changed. With fixed rows, tables can
> be checked, repaired, and accessed more quickly. If you know the row
> size, you know how to get to row 500,123 quickly. It's just
> multiplication. But if the row sizes are
Whoops, originally sent this to just Heikki.
> On Monday, February 11, 2002, at 12:12 PM, Heikki Tuuri wrote:
>
>> for InnoDB 'dynamic rows', that is, rows where you define char columns as
>> VARCHAR, are faster because tables and indexes fit in smaller space.
>
> Is there reasoning specific to
Eric,
for InnoDB 'dynamic rows', that is, rows where you define char columns as
VARCHAR, are faster because tables and indexes fit in smaller space.
Only in some rare cases where you want to avoid fragmentation caused by
updates which change a column length, a fixed-length CHAR(...) column can b
I have a large data set (15 mil rows) consisting of a datetime column
and a char(255) column. I seem to recall seeing something about
performance benefits for using static length rows with MyISAM tables,
and I've heard some argument for using dynamic length rows (e.g., use
varchar rather than cha
Hi!
-Original Message-
From: David Felio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Heikki Tuuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: Static or Dynamic rows -- which is faster?
>On Monday, February 11, 2002, at 12:12 PM, Heikki Tuuri wrote:
>
>
Dear Hayan,
> Which of the following SQL queries is faster and better
> "select thefield from thetable group by thetable"
> Or
> "select distinct thefield from thetable"?
> and WHY?
=if you use the MySQL command line to issue a query, a summary report follows any
output giving number of rows
a
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:48:10PM -0600, David Felio wrote:
> Whoops, originally sent this to just Heikki.
>
> On Monday, February 11, 2002, at 12:12 PM, Heikki Tuuri wrote:
>
>> for InnoDB 'dynamic rows', that is, rows where you define char columns as
>> VARCHAR, are faster because tables and
At 04:21 AM 2/5/2002 , you wrote:
>Dear all,
>Which of the following SQL queries is faster and better
>"select thefield from thetable group by thetable"
>Or
>"select distinct thefield from thetable"?
>and WHY?
>
>Best Regards
>Hayan
Hayan,
I believe the "Select Distinct.." gets translate
Dear Hayan,
> Which of the following SQL queries is faster and better
> "select thefield from thetable group by thetable"
> Or
> "select distinct thefield from thetable"?
> and WHY?
=if you use the MySQL command line to issue a query, a summary report follows any
output giving number of rows
a
Dear all,
Which of the following SQL queries is faster and better
"select thefield from thetable group by thetable"
Or
"select distinct thefield from thetable"?
and WHY?
Best Regards
Hayan
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a l
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 09:42:07AM -0600, BD wrote:
>
> Jeremy,
>
> Thanks, I hadn't thought of TinyText. With flat file type
> databases that I used to use, if I put something in a memo field, it
> takes longer to retrieve the data because it is stored in a separate
> physical file. Th
ED]
Subject: Re: Which is faster VarChar(255) or Text?
At 02:31 AM 1/25/2002 , you wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 05:27:18PM -0600, BD wrote:
>
> > I will be putting variable length text into a field (up to 255
> > characters but typically around 60 characters) and wonder what makes
At 02:31 AM 1/25/2002 , you wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 05:27:18PM -0600, BD wrote:
>
> > I will be putting variable length text into a field (up to 255
> > characters but typically around 60 characters) and wonder what makes
> > for faster retrieval? Or does it matter? A field defined as
> >
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 05:27:18PM -0600, BD wrote:
> I will be putting variable length text into a field (up to 255
> characters but typically around 60 characters) and wonder what makes
> for faster retrieval? Or does it matter? A field defined as
> Varchar(255) or Text?
Do you mean VARCHAR(25
I will be putting variable length text into a field (up to 255 characters
but typically around 60 characters) and wonder what makes for faster
retrieval? Or does it matter? A field defined as Varchar(255) or Text? It
is unlikely this field will be used for searching and it will not be
indexed
17 matches
Mail list logo