zeitgeist team mailing list archive
-
zeitgeist team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #01798
Re: [Bug 641100] Re: ZeitgeistEngine.__init__(): statement to get last row id is not using the index
WHOA +1
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Siegfried Gevatter
<rainct@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 1. +1
> 2. SQLITE sucks. Big time.
>
> --
> ZeitgeistEngine.__init__(): statement to get last row id is not using the
> index
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/641100
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to The
> Zeitgeist Project.
>
> Status in Zeitgeist Framework: New
>
> Bug description:
> The attached script is creating a log with ~49k events.
> In the constructor of ZeitgeistEngine we need to search for the minimum and
> maximum event id. In the script I'm doing two different ways of getting
> these values:
>
> Our current query:
> SELECT MIN(id), MAX(id) FROM event
> -> this is not using the event index, and takes about 0.096 secunds for me
>
> do the same in two queries:
> SELECT MIN(id) FROM event + SELECT MAX(id) FROM event
> -> both queries are using the index, and together they take about 0.003 for
> me
>
> I suggest changing the one query into two to get some speedups.
>
>
>
--
This is me doing some advertisement for my blog http://seilo.geekyogre.com
--
ZeitgeistEngine.__init__(): statement to get last row id is not using the index
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/641100
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Zeitgeist
Framework Team, which is subscribed to Zeitgeist Framework.
Status in Zeitgeist Framework: New
Bug description:
The attached script is creating a log with ~49k events.
In the constructor of ZeitgeistEngine we need to search for the minimum and maximum event id. In the script I'm doing two different ways of getting these values:
Our current query:
SELECT MIN(id), MAX(id) FROM event
-> this is not using the event index, and takes about 0.096 secunds for me
do the same in two queries:
SELECT MIN(id) FROM event + SELECT MAX(id) FROM event
-> both queries are using the index, and together they take about 0.003 for me
I suggest changing the one query into two to get some speedups.
References