Привет! John Holmes wrote: > Gesundheit >>*if* that was on Oracle *and* the table was big you'd notice that your >>performance goes down. Don't ask me why. And I never checked it on >>MySql. But watch out for betweens. Check them. > > Yes, good point. I don't know if it matters in MySQL either, but always > test your queries and see which is faster. EXPLAIN may come in handy > here. I don't see why it would be different, it seems like both would be > interpreted the same...
Most PHP apps underlying storage simply does not reach the dimensions needed for the difference to show up (that is, when rows come in hundred of thousands and you have a fairly good normalized data structure, say at least in the third form). Yest if you don't normalize data you might see it degrade when you are just in the pale realm of thousands. For what I could make out of it myself, it has to do with the fact that an SQL macro instruction (if you pardon the use of the "macro" term in this context) needs to be translated to some set of "and...or" clauses before the engine can actually execute it. Some engine does the translation on a "per row" basis, which is why they can end-up killing your performance. That's just my own fantasy about it, no such assertion is in *any* docs that I saw. But if it was done just once the size of your query set should be irrilevant to performance, methinks. пока Альберто Киев @-_=}{=_-@-_=}{=_-@-_=}{=_-@-_=}{=_-@-_=}{=_-@-_=}{=_-@-_=}{=_-@ LoRd, CaN yOu HeAr Me, LiKe I'm HeArInG yOu? lOrD i'M sHiNiNg... YoU kNoW I AlMoSt LoSt My MiNd, BuT nOw I'm HoMe AnD fReE tHe TeSt, YeS iT iS ThE tEsT, yEs It Is tHe TeSt, YeS iT iS ThE tEsT, yEs It Is....... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php