[Please configure this mailing list to reply to the group!]
Jay Pipes wrote:
> Seems to me that rings and accessories *would* have an index in common,
> as shown above: the rings.id column is related to the accessories.id
> column, no?
The query joins Apples and Oranges! ("Rings" could be called "Arenas" - they are
not jewelry accessories!)
> It has an ALL because there is no WHERE condition supplied on an indexed
> column, no because of the join.
Point; I will upgrade the sample.
> This is a good basic check for SQL inefficiency, as it checks for full
> table scans, which are indicators that an index is missing or a WHERE
> condition is not being passed. However, there are *many* cases when
> full table scans are perfectly fine:
> * SELECTing all of a lookup table
For these edge cases, one would not use assert_efficient_sql (or one would make
the queries efficient anyway). You have identified Z in my A,B,C progression -
the option before A!
Thanks for the post; I will implement as much as I can now and get back to y'all!