smallint(5) unsigned default NULL,
`art_skip` smallint(5) unsigned default NULL,
`art_end` smallint(5) unsigned default NULL,
`active_download` enum('yes','no') not null default 'yes',
`active_view` enum('yes','no') not null default 'yes'
"Octavian Rasnita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/19/2005 02:45:58 AM:
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: more queries vs a bigger one
>
>
> > Hello,
> > approx. how long does it take your "big" query to run as it is now?
Are
&g
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: more queries vs a bigger one
> Hello,
> approx. how long does it take your "big" query to run as it is now? Are
> these queries appending a table? or are they buiding a result (from a
> "chain" of queries)? Ha
Hello.
It is a hard task to answer if we don't see your queries and tables'
structure. Sometimes several small queries could be faster than a big
one. For example, often, query with subqueries or union runs slower than
few queries which use temporary tables.
"Octavian Rasnita" <[EMAI
Hello,
approx. how long does it take your "big" query to run as it is now? Are
these queries appending a table? or are they buiding a result (from a
"chain" of queries)? Have you tried separating them out? Any difference?
-sam
> Hi,
>
> I have a big query that involves searching in more tables
Hi,
I have a big query that involves searching in more tables, and I think this
might be slower than creating more smaller queries. What do you think, is
this true generally?
The query searches in a big table but it also counts the number of records
from other 2 tables based on a criteria, and us
