Re: using an index worst performances

Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm tring to optimize the following query:
>
> http://rafb.net/paste/results/YdO9vM69.html
>
> as you can see from the explain after defining the
> index the performance is worst.
>
> If I raise the default_statistic_target to 200
> then the performance are worst then before:
>
>
> Without index: 1.140 ms
> With index: 1.400 ms
> With default_statistic_targer = 200:   1.800 ms

Can I just check that 1.800ms means 1.8 secs (You're using . as the
thousands separator)?

If it means 1.8ms then frankly the times are too short to mean anything
without running them 100 times and averaging.

--
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd