List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Mogens Melander Date:December 9 2008 5:07pm
Subject:Re: Uptimize: join table on if()
View as plain text  
Hmmm, no. That's not it. The 2 queries using if() return the right
number of rows. The union return too few.

Anyway. I ended up with a query that runs in about 1 sec. compared to
the original that ran about 3 min. I'm happy :)

Thanks a bunch.

On Tue, December 9, 2008 14:53, Thomas Pundt wrote:
> On Dienstag, 9. Dezember 2008, Mogens Melander wrote:
> | I can't figure out why the "UNION" solution is missing 4 rows. I'll include
> | the 3 complete statements, so maybe someone smarter than me can figure out
> | why there's a difference in the result.
>
> Without having "studied" your query, my guess would be: double rows. UNION
> eliminates those; if you need them, use "UNION ALL". Just a guess though...
>
> Ciao,
> Thomas
>
> --
> Thomas Pundt <thomas.pundt@stripped> ---- http://rp-online.de/ ----

-- 
Later

Mogens Melander



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Thread
Uptimize: join table on if()Mogens Melander8 Dec
  • Re: Uptimize: join table on if()Peter Brawley8 Dec
  • Re: Uptimize: join table on if()Brent Baisley8 Dec
    • Re: Uptimize: join table on if()Mogens Melander9 Dec
      • Re: Uptimize: join table on if()Thomas Pundt9 Dec
        • Re: Uptimize: join table on if()Mogens Melander9 Dec