On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Matt White wrote:
> I have a relatively straightforward query that by itself isn't that
> slow, but we have to run it up to 40 times on one webpage load, so it
> needs to run much faster than it does. Here it is:
>
> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM users, user_groups
> WHERE
On 2/3/2010 11:17 AM, Matt White wrote:
On Feb 2, 1:11 pm, a...@squeakycode.net (Andy Colson) wrote:
On 2/2/2010 1:03 PM, Matt White wrote:
On Feb 2, 6:06 am, Edgardo Portalwrote:
On 2010-02-02, Matt Whitewrote:
I have a relatively straightforward query that by itself isn't tha
I have a relatively straightforward query that by itself isn't that
slow, but we have to run it up to 40 times on one webpage load, so it
needs to run much faster than it does. Here it is:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM users, user_groups
WHERE users.user_group_id = user_groups.id AND NOT users.deleted AND
On 2010-02-02, Matt White wrote:
> I have a relatively straightforward query that by itself isn't that
> slow, but we have to run it up to 40 times on one webpage load, so it
> needs to run much faster than it does. Here it is:
>
> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM users, user_groups
> WHERE users.user_group_
On Feb 2, 6:06 am, Edgardo Portal wrote:
> On 2010-02-02, Matt White wrote:
>
> > I have a relatively straightforward query that by itself isn't that
> > slow, but we have to run it up to 40 times on one webpage load, so it
> > needs to run much faster than it does. Here it is:
>
> > SELECT COUNT
On 2/2/2010 1:03 PM, Matt White wrote:
On Feb 2, 6:06 am, Edgardo Portal wrote:
On 2010-02-02, Matt White wrote:
I have a relatively straightforward query that by itself isn't that
slow, but we have to run it up to 40 times on one webpage load, so it
needs to run much faster than it does. He
