| List: | General Discussion | « Previous MessageNext Message » | |
| From: | Morten Primdahl | Date: | March 4 2009 7:42pm |
| Subject: | Re: SQL_NO_CACHE | ||
| View as plain text | |||
On Mar 4, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Jocelyn Fournier wrote: > Just curious : if there's no index on the column why don't you try > to add one ? That's probably why it takes a lot of time on the > production machine. Hehe.. I can understand why you ask, I over simplified the question which was wrong of me. I'm just using this specific column because I was playing around while trying to figure out why the first query was slow and the subsequent snappy. Br, Morten
| Thread | ||
|---|---|---|
| • SQL_NO_CACHE | Morten | 4 Mar |
| • Re: SQL_NO_CACHE | Micah Stevens | 4 Mar |
| • Re: SQL_NO_CACHE | Perrin Harkins | 4 Mar |
| • Re: SQL_NO_CACHE | Thomas Spahni | 4 Mar |
| • Re: SQL_NO_CACHE | Perrin Harkins | 4 Mar |
| • Re: SQL_NO_CACHE | jocelyn fournier | 4 Mar |
| • Re: SQL_NO_CACHE | Morten Primdahl | 4 Mar |
| • Re: SQL_NO_CACHE | jocelyn fournier | 4 Mar |
| • Re: SQL_NO_CACHE | Micah | 4 Mar |
| • Re: SQL_NO_CACHE | Jocelyn Fournier | 4 Mar |
| • Re: SQL_NO_CACHE | Morten Primdahl | 4 Mar |
| • Re: SQL_NO_CACHE | Johan De Meersman | 4 Mar |
