Walden,
This looks very promising, but I think I need more tests to make sure it
stays consistent.
Can you try a couple of things?
1) rewrite the query as:
This time the temporary table is listed as taking 0.1 seconds to create --
compared to the 3.4 seconds the first time around.
3) Flip the query (again the engine should be smart enough, but...)
And then it says it took 0.0 seconds to create the temporary table. So I
tried the original SQL again, and it also took 0.0 seconds. So I think it
is benefiting from having just run a very similar query? I tried a few
different selection criteria, and so far have acceptable results on all of
them using your first proposed rewrite.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
