On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Richard Huxton wrote:
>>
>> OK - so the first query processes 19,799 rows in 31,219 ms (about 1.5ms
>> per row)
>>
>> The second processes 2,606 rows in 3,813 ms (about 1.3ms per row).
>
> Agreed. One query is faster than the other because it has to do an eighth
> the amount of work.
>
> Matthew
Thanks guys, ya this has dropped the time by half. The process is
manageable now. Thanks again. For some reason we thought this method
would make it take more time, vs less. So again appreciate the help :)
Tory