don't use 'NOT EXISTS', as this will be damn slow. Use LEFT JOIN.
W dniu 1 marca 2010 09:40 użytkownik Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz
gryz...@gmail.comnapisał:
don't use 'NOT EXISTS', as this will be damn slow. Use LEFT JOIN.
Right, LEFT JOIN should be faster (with proper indices even much faster).
Hi Terry,
On Sunday 28 February 2010 22.56:41 Terry wrote:
I am looking for a way to copy all the data from one table to another
on a regular basis, every 5 minutes let's say.
INSERT INTO table2 SELECT * FROM table1;
Why do you want this? Is it necessary for the data in table2 to appear
Szymon Guz mabew...@gmail.com writes:
W dniu 1 marca 2010 09:40 użytkownik Grzegorz JaÅkiewicz
gryz...@gmail.comnapisaÅ:
don't use 'NOT EXISTS', as this will be damn slow. Use LEFT JOIN.
Right, LEFT JOIN should be faster (with proper indices even much faster).
Converting NOT EXISTS into
Hello,
I am looking for a way to copy all the data from one table to another
on a regular basis, every 5 minutes let's say.
INSERT INTO table2 SELECT * FROM table1;
The above will copy all the data as is and insert it into the other
table. What happens if I rerun it again? Will it just append
Terry wrote:
Hello,
I am looking for a way to copy all the data from one table to another
on a regular basis, every 5 minutes let's say.
INSERT INTO table2 SELECT * FROM table1;
The above will copy all the data as is and insert it into the other
table. What happens if I rerun it again? Will
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:56:41 -0600, Terry wrote about [GENERAL]
continuous copy/update one table to another:
Hello,
I am looking for a way to copy all the data from one table to another
on a regular basis, every 5 minutes let's say.
INSERT INTO table2 SELECT * FROM table1;
The above will copy
2010/2/28 John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com
Terry wrote:
Hello,
I am looking for a way to copy all the data from one table to another
on a regular basis, every 5 minutes let's say.
INSERT INTO table2 SELECT * FROM table1;
The above will copy all the data as is and insert it into the
Szymon Guz wrote:
Different doesn't mean that the id should be greater or lower, rather
should be different. I'd rather do something like:
indeed, my code assumed that records were only INSERT'd into table1 and
never UPDATE or DELETE'd. my statement -did- have the advantage of
being fast,
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:29 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
Szymon Guz wrote:
Different doesn't mean that the id should be greater or lower, rather
should be different. I'd rather do something like:
indeed, my code assumed that records were only INSERT'd into table1 and
never
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:29 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
Szymon Guz wrote:
Different doesn't mean that the id should be greater or lower, rather
should be different. I'd rather do something like:
indeed, my code assumed that records were only INSERT'd into table1 and
never
Terry wrote:
One more question. This is a pretty decent sized table. It is
estimated to be 19,038,200 rows. That said, should I see results
immediately pouring into the destination table while this is running?
SQL transactions are atomic. you wont' see anything in the 'new' table
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
Terry wrote:
One more question. This is a pretty decent sized table. It is
estimated to be 19,038,200 rows. That said, should I see results
immediately pouring into the destination table while this is running?
SQL
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Terry td3...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
Terry wrote:
One more question. This is a pretty decent sized table. It is
estimated to be 19,038,200 rows. That said, should I see results
immediately
14 matches
Mail list logo
