Posted by Mike Read on 01/25/06 13:52

Hi Robert

> I don't know your env and its requirements but to me the difference
> between sub 1 sec and several seconds doesn't sound worth the effort
> changing anything - unless, of course, you have lots of these short
> queries executed in sequence and the difference sums up dramatically.
>

Yes there could well be a lot of the small queries.

>
> - scheduling: make sure the long runners are done during the night or
> other time when the DB is mostly idle.
>

I'm trying to write some sort of queue to help with this but the chances
are there will always be a long running query executing at a given time.

> - distribution of data: either via some form of replication or by moving
> data from one DB to a complete different system
>

We're looking at getting another server to handle the long queries
so this might utilmately be the answer

> - optimizing SQL: additional indexes, different query conditions etc.
>

We've pretty much done what we can but some queries will always need a
full table scan.

As all queries run at the same priority I was kind of expecting a
0.1 sec query to take approx 0.2 sec (rather than 10 secs as is happening)
if another (long) query is running.

As this isn't the case I presume there's some sort of
overhead/cache/swapping occuring that I might have been able to
reduce showhow.

Thanks
Mike

[Back to original message]