hilaner wrote:
And - if I have to have sorted results as a small (but ordered!) part of big
amount of data - there is no way to make it faster...
SQLite will pull records out of the database in sorted order,
if you have an index on the columns of the ORDER BY clause and
you don't need to use a
Christian Smith wrote:
> Query (2) has an extra condition in the WHERE clause, thus reducing
> the result set size to be sorted. As sorting is probably an
> O(n.log(n)) operation, halving the result set will more than halve
> the time taken to sort, for example. Add that extra condition to
>
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Darren Duncan wrote:
>So to make this faster you either have to make WHERE return fewer
>rows (better), or let it return more but remove the ORDER BY.
It's not a good idea to use LIMIT on unordered results, of course, as the
order of results for unordered result sets is,
Adam, your query using LIMIT and a less-restricting WHERE is slower
because you have an ORDER BY clause.
ORDER BY is always one of the slowest things you can do in a query
because every record returned by WHERE (or HAVING if you're using
GROUP BY) has to be compared to every other record for
Hi all!
Since my database growed to more than 20 000 records, I have noticed that
select limited to a few numer of records by LIMIT takes much more time than
select limited to similar number of records by another WHERE condition.
I use sqlite_get_table function.
In my case I have the following
5 matches
Mail list logo
