On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 22:39 +0800, K C Lau wrote:
> >Is a 51ms query really such a problem for you?
>
> Unfortunately yes, as our target performance is in the high hundreds of
> transactions per sec. And 51 ms is already the best case for a single
> select, with everything cached in memory immediately after the same select
> which took 390 ms on a quiet system.
If the current value is used so often, use two tables - one with a
current view only of the row maintained using UPDATE. Different
performance issues maybe, but at least not correlated subquery ones.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs