--- Martin O'Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I have a table like the following:
>
> CREATE TABLE user_actions (
> uid INTEGER NOT NULL,
> actionid INTEGER NOT NULL,
> time INTEGER NOT NULL,
> status INTEGER NOT NULL,
> PRIMARY KEY (uid, actionid, time,
Martin O'Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Martin O'Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, with regard to 3.3.0, the alpha release seems to slow down my
> > > example query by about 20% (The virtual machine opcodes are
> > >
On 1/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin O'Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Also, with regard to 3.3.0, the alpha release seems to slow down my
> > example query by about 20% (The virtual machine opcodes are
> > identical). Is this a bug?
> >
>
> A bug is when it
Martin O'Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Also, with regard to 3.3.0, the alpha release seems to slow down my
> example query by about 20% (The virtual machine opcodes are
> identical). Is this a bug?
>
A bug is when it gets the wrong answer.
Nevertheless we are concerned about
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The query as you have specified it runs in O(NlogN) time
> where N is the number of rows in the table.
Actually, the original query runs in O(N) time. I was mistaken.
But I still think I am right in saying that my "manual" scheme
runs in O(MlogN) time. So the
Martin O'Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I have a table like the following:
>
> CREATE TABLE user_actions (
> uid INTEGER NOT NULL,
> actionid INTEGER NOT NULL,
> time INTEGER NOT NULL,
> status INTEGER NOT NULL,
> PRIMARY KEY (uid, actionid, time, status)
>
Hi guys,
I have a table like the following:
CREATE TABLE user_actions (
uid INTEGER NOT NULL,
actionid INTEGER NOT NULL,
time INTEGER NOT NULL,
status INTEGER NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (uid, actionid, time, status)
);
And I want to carry out a query something like this:
SELECT
7 matches
Mail list logo