Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not an SQL guru by any means, so seeing this made a light go on.
Does
that mean it is a good idea in the general case to always add "limit
1" to a
select that you know should only return 1 row?
That probably can't hurt (if you are sure the query would only ev
Dani Va <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
First, thanks, your suggestion worked.
To my surprise, it was enough to add "limit 1" to the original query.
Try searching for a value that doesn't fall into any block - you'll
likely find that the query takes a noticeable time to produce zero
records. Pick
Dani Valevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think I have a performance problem for a simple select with range.
My Tables:
CREATE TABLE locations(
locidINTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
country TEXT,
regionTEXT,
cityTEXT,
po
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen Toney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
select count(*) from keyword a, keyword b where a.key=b.key and
a.value='music' and b.value='history';
4,318 records have value='music' and 27,058 have value='history'. The
keys are 12-byte strings. That doesn't seem like an extr
Stephen Toney
wrote:
select count(*) from keyword a, keyword b where a.key=b.key and
a.value='music' and b.value='history';
0|0|TABLE keyword AS a WITH INDEX value
1|1|TABLE keyword AS b WITH INDEX value
4,318 records have value='music' and 27,058 have value='history'.
Try running ANALYZE st
5 matches
Mail list logo
