Kevin Grittner wrote:
> These query times are the "fully cached" times for both, from doing a
> previous run of the same query. (The first one took 193.772 ms on its first
> run; I don't have a good "uncached" timing for the second one at this point.)
>
> It seems like the first query could mo
These query times are the "fully cached" times for both, from doing a previous
run of the same query. (The first one took 193.772 ms on its first run; I
don't have a good "uncached" timing for the second one at this point.)
It seems like the first query could move the searchName filter to the
