I'm not certain how MySQL handles the specific case where some columns
in a record covered by a multi-column index are updated; it may update
the whole index entry, or just part of it, not sure. In any case,
yes, there is some overhead associated with having an index on columns
that get updated.
Yes, it'd be best to have the values with highest cardinality / most
uniqueness first.
On 10/17/06, William R. Mussatto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would it not be best to have the field with the fewest repeats (i.e., the
closest to unique) first, or is that what you meant.
Bill
On Tue, October
