Joe, the two plans are actually equal (within a few %).
Thanks for all your help folks! I've learned quite a bit and I hope other
readers did too.
Chris
--- Chris Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe, the numbers are 100, 4236301 and 100 respectively (as you suspected,
> there are few devices, many intervals, and all devices have intervals).
>
> Richard, sqlite_stat1 has these rows for the dpi indexes:
> INSERT INTO "sqlite_stat1" VALUES('devic
Joe, the numbers are 100, 4236301 and 100 respectively (as you suspected,
there are few devices, many intervals, and all devices have intervals).
Richard, sqlite_stat1 has these rows for the dpi indexes:
INSERT INTO "sqlite_stat1" VALUES('device_perf_interval','dpi1','4236301
2118151 21182 21182
Joe Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Chris Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks, I tried both 3.3.13 and 3.4.0. With 3.3.13 the +'s didn't make a
> > difference; the loops always were in d, dpi order with index dpi1 used. With
> > 3.4.0 the loops were always in dpi, d order with index
I have a database with the following tables:
CREATE TABLE device (
device_id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
device_type INTEGER NOT NULL, -- lookup in device_type
...
);
CREATE TABLE device_perf_interval (
interval_id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
5 matches
Mail list logo
