On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Igor Tandetnik wrote:
> On 6/11/2013 9:01 AM, Simon Slavin wrote:
>
>> The only time that _prepare() will use a lot of memory is when it has to
>> generate a temporary index because you have not created a table index
>> suitable for the WHERE and ORDER BY clauses.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 09:08:42AM -0400, Igor Tandetnik scratched on the wall:
> On 6/11/2013 9:01 AM, Simon Slavin wrote:
> > The only time that _prepare() will use a lot of memory is when it has to
> > generate a temporary index because you have not created a table index
> > suitable for the WHE
On 6/11/2013 9:01 AM, Simon Slavin wrote:
The only time that _prepare() will use a lot of memory is when it has to
generate a temporary index because you have not created a table index suitable
for the WHERE and ORDER BY clauses.
I'm pretty sure this would happen on the first _step(), not on
On 10 Jun 2013, at 1:56pm, Daniel Hofmann wrote:
> Background is, that I want to implement my paging entirely in sql in order to
> save memory, because the complete result-data consumes a lot of memory.
If you use _prepare(), _step(), _finalize() instead of using _exec() then you
get the beha
Hi,
Background is, that I want to implement my paging entirely in sql in
order to save memory, because the complete result-data consumes a lot of
memory.
Question is: Why isn't there a way like the FOUND_ROWS()-function of
MySQL (I didn't find any reading the docs and googling), to get the
5 matches
Mail list logo