Subject:
|
Re: Gallery speed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 23:31:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2517 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> I think I've fixed the painfully slow performance of the "recent" page.
> There were some indexes missing in the database that really should have
> been there. It loads reasonably fast now (~.8 seconds unless the
> machine is really busy).
>
> If there are any database wizards out there, maybe you can help make it
> even faster.
>
> here's the "slow" query that is currently limiting performance:
>
> SELECT DISTINCT file_parent FROM files ORDER BY file_modify_time DESC LIMIT 24
>
> each file_parent is then used to retrieve a folder record with icon information
> etc. Those 24 queries are extremely fast (0.01 secs ea) so that's not the
> problem. I do have indexes for file parent and file_modify_time.
One speed-up would be to store the modify date/time of each folder (updated
when a file is added / updated / deleted) and then query directly against
the folders. It also depends on your back-end query optimiser - even if
you're only selecting data from an index many (bad) optimisers still hit the
actual table data as well. Does your back-end have any facilities to
investigate the query optimiser?
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Gallery speed
|
| I think I've fixed the painfully slow performance of the "recent" page. There were some indexes missing in the database that really should have been there. It loads reasonably fast now (~.8 seconds unless the machine is really busy). If there are (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
