I'll have to look again. I was sure I had mucked with estimatedCost
and found that it wasn't doing the trick for what I meant to do - but
somehow the context has swapped out of my short-term memory, so I'll
have to recreate it before I can say why this was the case.
-scott
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008
see sqlite3_index_info.estimatedCost
http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/chngview?cn=5649
> AFAICT, when you have a join where one table has a good index, the
> virtual table cannot signal that it has an even better index. I could
> not follow the index-selection logic well enough to have any
> sugge
[Sorry for the blast from the past.]
I think this class of problem does also happen on fts, there was a
thread on August 7 on sqlite-dev about it. Unfortunately, I don't see
any open-access web-mirrors of that list to refer to, but here's a
members-only ref:
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman
Am 18.08.2008 um 21:32 schrieb Dennis Cote:
> Thomas Sailer wrote:
>>
>> Interestingly, the original query is extremely compute-bound, there
>> is
>> almost no disk activity!
>>
>> Looking at the output opcodes from the queries, I can't see any
>> significant difference. Though I have to admit
Thomas Sailer wrote:
>
> Interestingly, the original query is extremely compute-bound, there is
> almost no disk activity!
>
> Looking at the output opcodes from the queries, I can't see any
> significant difference. Though I have to admit I'm by far no expert in
> vmdb opcodes...
>
You can use
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 11:16 -0600, Dennis Cote wrote:
> Does this query run faster?
>
> select * from mapelements
> where ID in
> (
> select ID from mapelements_rtree
> where mapelements_rtree.NELAT>=7900
> and mapelements_rtree.SWLAT<=8000
> and mapelements_rtree
Thomas Sailer wrote:
>
> The following query is very quick, it returns 20 rows within a small fraction
> of a second:
> select * from mapelements_rtree where NELAT>=7900 and SWLAT<=8000 and
> NELON>=7900 and SWLON<=8000;
>
> The following query, however, takes a long time (almos
Hello!
В сообщении от Monday 18 August 2008 20:21:04 Thomas Sailer написал(а):
> The following query is very quick, it returns 20 rows within a small
> fraction of a second: select * from mapelements_rtree where NELAT>=7900
> and SWLAT<=8000 and NELON>=7900 and SWLON<=8000;
>
> The
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 12:28 -0400, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
> Please try changing the last term as shown below (add a "+" before the
> r-tree ID column):
>
> mapelements.ID = +mapelements_rtree.ID
Thanks a lot for your quick answer! Unfortunately, it didn't help.
What's interesting is tha
On Aug 18, 2008, at 12:21 PM, Thomas Sailer wrote:
>
> The following query, however, takes a long time (almost half a
> minute):
> select * from mapelements,mapelements_rtree where
> mapelements_rtree.NELAT>=7900 and
> mapelements_rtree.SWLAT<=8000 and
> mapelements_rtree.NELON>=79
I have a database with the following schema:
CREATE TABLE mapelements (ID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL, TYPECODE
INTEGER,NAME TEXT,LAT INTEGER,LON INTEGER,SWLAT INTEGER,SWLON INTEGER,NELAT
INTEGER,NELON INTEGER,POLY BLOB,TILE INTEGER);
CREATE VIRTUAL TABLE mapelements_rtree USING rtree(ID,SWLAT,
11 matches
Mail list logo
