Re: index search
| From: | Robert Cummings | Date: | Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:08:40 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: index search | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.general |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-general+get-282404@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 10:49 -0400, Andrew Ballard wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Robert Cummings <robert@interjinn.com> wrote:
> >> As for the numeric comparison, I know MySQL has a REGEXP comparison
> >> similar to the LIKE comparator, but I don't know enough about MySQL to
> >> know if it can similarly benefit from indexes the same way. (SQL
> >> Server will let you say WHERE foo LIKE '[0-9]%', but this doesn't seem
> >> to work in MySQL.)
> >
> > Yeah, I know about MySQL's regexp, but that didn't seem terribly efficient. For
> > small databases, under a million records, I prefer to trade space for time.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rob.
>
> I've never used the regexp in MySQL, so I have no idea how it impacts
> performance; I just saw it in the manual (where the comments confirm
> that REGEXP does not use indexes - yuk).
>
> In some cases, I agree with you that a small tradeoff in space to save
> time is worthwhile. In this case though, I think it would work to say
> WHERE foo BETWEEN '0' AND '9' and WHERE foo LIKE 'a%' since both
> are
> able to use an existing index and don't need to maintain an additional
> column.
Maintaining that extra column is like a one liner in the insert code.
Also the width of the field at one byte is pretty teency... a few more
bytes if you use UTF and plan to index non ascii characters. Since this
is a library of wine, it's more likely the case of occasional insert and
many many reads. So I think this is an exemplary candidate for a
separate indexed field.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP