Posted by David Cressey on 03/24/07 18:25

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:JkWMh.17031$Jl.7174@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Zamdrist" <zamdrist@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1174675879.584481.208100@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 23, 12:38 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> > <mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Just so you know, these aren't very large tables.
> >>
> >> However, I'd definitely agree you probably want some indexes.
> >>
> >> However, the question you're asking is a bit too generic. You probably
> >> need
> >> to look at what queries you're doing and optimize for those
specifically.
> >>
> >> And generally you want to find not necessarily the longest running
> >> queries,
> >> but the ones called the most. If you have one query called 10 times a
> >> day
> >> that runs for 10 minutes and optimize it 10%, you'll save 10 minutes a
> >> day.
> >>
> >> If you have one query called 10,000 times a day for a minute and
optimize
> >> it
> >> 10%, you'll save 1000 minutes.
> >
> > A million records isn't large? Ok.
>
> Nah, rather trivial these days. ;-)

Does "trivial" mean easy or unimportant?

[Back to original message]