Baron Schwartz wrote:
I don't think it will be any better to count distinct values. I think
the query is just slow because the index lookups are slow. Is the
'word' column really 150 bytes?
huh. it's a varchar(50) on table1 and a varchar(50) on table2. i wonder why
explain is reporting
Russell Uman wrote:
Baron Schwartz wrote:
I don't think it will be any better to count distinct values. I think
the query is just slow because the index lookups are slow. Is the
'word' column really 150 bytes?
huh. it's a varchar(50) on table1 and a varchar(50) on table2. i wonder
why
huh. it's a varchar(50) on table1 and a varchar(50) on table2. i
wonder why explain is reporting 150 as key_len?
utf8?
yes. that does make sense.
is there anything else i can investgate?
Do you need utf8? :-)
yes. it's an internationalized application :)
Check your cache hits. I
I don't think it will be any better to count distinct values. I think
the query is just slow because the index lookups are slow. Is the
'word' column really 150 bytes? That's probably the culprit. How slow
is this, by the way? 370k rows in one table, verifying the
non-existence of index
howdy.
i trying to find items in one table that don't exist in another.
i'm using a left join with a where clause to do it:
SELECT t1.field, t2.field FROM table1 t1 LEFT JOIN table2 t2 ON t1.word =
t2.word WHERE t2.word IS NULL;
both tables are quite large and the query is quite slow.
the
Hi,
Russell Uman wrote:
howdy.
i trying to find items in one table that don't exist in another.
i'm using a left join with a where clause to do it:
SELECT t1.field, t2.field FROM table1 t1 LEFT JOIN table2 t2 ON t1.word
= t2.word WHERE t2.word IS NULL;
both tables are quite large and the
There's no using distinct, but there is not exists, and in fact no rows are
returned. Slow query log reports #Query_time: 94 Lock_time: 0 Rows_sent: 0
Rows_examined: 370220
EXPLAIN:
id select_type table type possible_keys key
key_len ref rows
