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
--
I wouldn't be so paranoid if you weren't all out to get me!!