Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 18:00:17 +0100,
Richard Huxton wrote:
Certainly, but if the text in the logfile row is the same, then hashing
isn't going to make a blind bit of difference. That's the root of my
concern, and something only Dinesh knows.
Sure it is. Because
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 18:00:17 +0100,
Richard Huxton wrote:
>
> Certainly, but if the text in the logfile row is the same, then hashing
> isn't going to make a blind bit of difference. That's the root of my
> concern, and something only Dinesh knows.
Sure it is. Because the hash can be use
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 13:40:53 +0100,
Richard Huxton wrote:
Actually, Dinesh didn't mention he was using this for the speed of
lookup. He'd defined the columns as being the PRIMARY KEY, presumably
because he feels they are/should be unique. Given that they are rows
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 13:40:53 +0100,
Richard Huxton wrote:
>
> Actually, Dinesh didn't mention he was using this for the speed of
> lookup. He'd defined the columns as being the PRIMARY KEY, presumably
> because he feels they are/should be unique. Given that they are rows
> from a logfile
