Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The scan is picking the best method for grabbing everything within the
> table, since it is not aware that we do not require everything.
Hmm. That is a bit silly. Why does it use the index if select only from
mm_mediasources?
> You can explicitly tell it wh
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 07:02, Michiel Meeuwissen wrote:
> > Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The scan is picking the best method for grabbing everything within the
> > > table, since it is not aware that we do not require everything.
> >
> > Hmm. T
> This indeeds performs good (about 1 times faster then select number,url
> from mm_mediasources order by number desc limit 20) . But hardly beautiful,
> and quite useless too because of course I am now going to want to use an
> offset (limit 20 offset 20, you see..), which seems more or less
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 07:02, Michiel Meeuwissen wrote:
> Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The scan is picking the best method for grabbing everything within the
> > table, since it is not aware that we do not require everything.
>
> Hmm. That is a bit silly. Why does it use the index if s
I have a query which performs not so well:
SELECT * FROM mm_mediasources ORDER BY number DESC LIMIT 20;
costs nearly a minute. The table contains over 300 000 records.
The table has two extensions, which are (a the moment) nearly empty, but
have something to do with this, because:
SELECT * FRO
