| bio | website | opensource.gonnerman.org |
|---|---|---|
| location | La Belle, MO | |
| age | 47 | |
| visits | member for | 9 months |
| seen | Oct 14 '12 at 13:51 | |
| stats | profile views | 2 |
|
Sep 22 |
comment |
Slow MySQL query, not sure why Doing only suggestion 2 dropped the processing time from over a second on my development machine to about 0.58 seconds. |
|
Sep 22 |
comment |
Slow MySQL query, not sure why Looking at my original post, I see I led you to confusion. The time listed on the single-record lookup is not correct, and I'm not sure how it got in there. On the production server, it took around 0.9 seconds to process the query, while on my development machine it takes more than a second. Another similar query takes over 2 seconds to process. I'm guessing I ran it twice (so that caching made it look quite a bit better) and pasted the wrong copy here. |
|
Sep 22 |
comment |
Slow MySQL query, not sure why Is it necessary to drop the propertysid index? I understand the point of the combined index (clever, that) but not why you drop the other one. |
|
Sep 21 |
comment |
Slow MySQL query, not sure why If that's possible, yes. Or alternately, I need a way to do the same thing efficiently. The view is used as a sub-select in another query, along with another similar view which performs slightly better (but still not well). I'd be happy with 0.1 seconds, just not 2 or more. I used views for this to avoid having a single query with a GROUP BY clause that repeats the thirty or forty field names of the combined query all over again. |