On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Jim Lyons <jlyons4435@stripped> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Jake Maul <jakemaul@stripped> wrote:
>> 3) Obviously it'd probably be faster if you weren't using
>> SQL_NO_CACHE... guessing you just did that to show us what it's like
>> that way?
> Why would SQL_NO_CACHE slow it down? By not checking the cache or storing
Because then it might be possible to return the query from the cache.
> the resultset into cache it should be quicker, at least a little bit.
> Unless, of course, the query would always return the same result set. But
> with count(*) in there it might not. In fact, I believe the count(*) would
> prevent MySQL from caching the query in the first place, like using now() -
> it's a non-deterministic function.
No, it should always return the same thing unless the data in the
table changes, so it's perfectly cacheable.
Baron Schwartz, Director of Consulting, Percona Inc.
Our Blog: http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/
Our Services: http://www.percona.com/services.html