Search Results

Search found 7672 results on 307 pages for 'compiler optimization'.

Page 101/307 | < Previous Page | 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108  | Next Page >

  • Sorting a list of numbers with modified cost

    - by David
    First, this was one of the four problems we had to solve in a project last year and I couldn’t find a suitable algorithm so we handle in a brute force solution. Problem: The numbers are in a list that is not sorted and supports only one type of operation. The operation is defined as follows: Given a position i and a position j the operation moves the number at position i to position j without altering the relative order of the other numbers. If i j, the positions of the numbers between positions j and i - 1 increment by 1, otherwise if i < j the positions of the numbers between positions i+1 and j decreases by 1. This operation requires i steps to find a number to move and j steps to locate the position to which you want to move it. Then the number of steps required to move a number of position i to position j is i+j. We need to design an algorithm that given a list of numbers, determine the optimal (in terms of cost) sequence of moves to rearrange the sequence. Attempts: Part of our investigation was around NP-Completeness, we make it a decision problem and try to find a suitable transformation to any of the problems listed in Garey and Johnson’s book: Computers and Intractability with no results. There is also no direct reference (from our point of view) to this kind of variation in Donald E. Knuth’s book: The art of Computer Programing Vol. 3 Sorting and Searching. We also analyzed algorithms to sort linked lists but none of them gives a good idea to find de optimal sequence of movements. Note that the idea is not to find an algorithm that orders the sequence, but one to tell me the optimal sequence of movements in terms of cost that organizes the sequence, you can make a copy and sort it to analyze the final position of the elements if you want, in fact we may assume that the list contains the numbers from 1 to n, so we know where we want to put each number, we are just concerned with minimizing the total cost of the steps. We tested several greedy approaches but all of them failed, divide and conquer sorting algorithms can’t be used because they swap with no cost portions of the list and our dynamic programing approaches had to consider many cases. The brute force recursive algorithm takes all the possible combinations of movements from i to j and then again all the possible moments of the rest of the element’s, at the end it returns the sequence with less total cost that sorted the list, as you can imagine the cost of this algorithm is brutal and makes it impracticable for more than 8 elements. Our observations: n movements is not necessarily cheaper than n+1 movements (unlike swaps in arrays that are O(1)). There are basically two ways of moving one element from position i to j: one is to move it directly and the other is to move other elements around i in a way that it reaches the position j. At most you make n-1 movements (the untouched element reaches its position alone). If it is the optimal sequence of movements then you didn’t move the same element twice.

    Read the article

  • Is count(*) really expensive ?

    - by Anil Namde
    I have a page where I have 4 tabs displaying 4 different reports based off different tables. I obtain the row count of each table using a select count(*) from <table> query and display number of rows available in each table on the tabs. As a result, each page postback causes 5 count(*) queries to be executed (4 to get counts and 1 for pagination) and 1 query for getting the report content. Now my question is: are count(*) queries really expensive -- should I keep the row counts (at least those that are displayed on the tab) in the view state of page instead of querying multiple times? How expensive are COUNT(*) queries ?

    Read the article

  • Ternary Operators in JavaScript Without an "Else"

    - by Oscar Godson
    I've been using them forever, and I love them. To me they see cleaner and i can scan faster, but ever since I've been using them i've always had to put null in the else conditions that don't have anything. Is there anyway around it? E.g. condition ? x=true : null ; basically, is there a way to do: condition ? x=true; Now it shows up as a syntax error...

    Read the article

  • Why isn't the copy constructor elided here?

    - by Jesse Beder
    (I'm using gcc with -O2.) This seems like a straightforward opportunity to elide the copy constructor, since there are no side-effects to accessing the value of a field in a bar's copy of a foo; but the copy constructor is called, since I get the output meep meep!. #include <iostream> struct foo { foo(): a(5) { } foo(const foo& f): a(f.a) { std::cout << "meep meep!\n"; } int a; }; struct bar { foo F() const { return f; } foo f; }; int main() { bar b; int a = b.F().a; return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Specific template for the first element.

    - by Kalinin
    I have a template: <xsl:template match="paragraph"> ... </xsl:template> I call it: <xsl:apply-templates select="paragraph"/> For the first element I need to do: <xsl:template match="paragraph[1]"> ... <xsl:apply-templates select="."/><!-- I understand that this does not work --> ... </xsl:template> How to call <xsl:apply-templates select="paragraph"/> (for the first element paragraph) from the template <xsl:template match="paragraph[1]">? So far that I have something like a loop. I solve this problem so (but I do not like it): <xsl:for-each select="paragraph"> <xsl:choose> <xsl:when test="position() = 1"> ... <xsl:apply-templates select="."/> ... </xsl:when> <xsl:otherwise> <xsl:apply-templates select="."/> </xsl:otherwise> </xsl:choose> </xsl:for-each>

    Read the article

  • Optimizing sparse dot-product in C#

    - by Haggai
    Hello. I'm trying to calculate the dot-product of two very sparse associative arrays. The arrays contain an ID and a value, so the calculation should be done only on those IDs that are common to both arrays, e.g. <(1, 0.5), (3, 0.7), (12, 1.3) * <(2, 0.4), (3, 2.3), (12, 4.7) = 0.7*2.3 + 1.3*4.7 . My implementation (call it dict) currently uses Dictionaries, but it is too slow to my taste. double dot_product(IDictionary<int, double> arr1, IDictionary<int, double> arr2) { double res = 0; double val2; foreach (KeyValuePair<int, double> p in arr1) if (arr2.TryGetValue(p.Key, out val2)) res += p.Value * val2; return res; } The full arrays have about 500,000 entries each, while the sparse ones are only tens to hundreds entries each. I did some experiments with toy versions of dot products. First I tried to multiply just two double arrays to see the ultimate speed I can get (let's call this "flat"). Then I tried to change the implementation of the associative array multiplication using an int[] ID array and a double[] values array, walking together on both ID arrays and multiplying when they are equal (let's call this "double"). I then tried to run all three versions with debug or release, with F5 or Ctrl-F5. The results are as follows: debug F5: dict: 5.29s double: 4.18s (79% of dict) flat: 0.99s (19% of dict, 24% of double) debug ^F5: dict: 5.23s double: 4.19s (80% of dict) flat: 0.98s (19% of dict, 23% of double) release F5: dict: 5.29s double: 3.08s (58% of dict) flat: 0.81s (15% of dict, 26% of double) release ^F5: dict: 4.62s double: 1.22s (26% of dict) flat: 0.29s ( 6% of dict, 24% of double) I don't understand these results. Why isn't the dictionary version optimized in release F5 as do the double and flat versions? Why is it only slightly optimized in the release ^F5 version while the other two are heavily optimized? Also, since converting my code into the "double" scheme would mean lots of work - do you have any suggestions how to optimize the dictionary one? Thanks! Haggai

    Read the article

  • Efficiently draw a grid in Windows Forms

    - by Joel
    I'm writing an implementation of Conway's Game of Life in C#. This is the code I'm using to draw the grid, it's in my panel_Paint event. g is the graphics context. for (int y = 0; y < numOfCells * cellSize; y += cellSize) { for (int x = 0; x < numOfCells * cellSize; x += cellSize) { g.DrawLine(p, x, 0, x, y + numOfCells * cellSize); g.DrawLine(p, 0, x, y + size * drawnGrid, x); } } When I run my program, it is unresponsive until it finishes drawing the grid, which takes a few seconds at numOfCells = 100 & cellSize = 10. Removing all the multiplication makes it faster, but not by very much. Is there a better/more efficient way to draw my grid? Thanks

    Read the article

  • how to avoid temporaries when copying weakly typed object

    - by Truncheon
    Hi. I'm writing a series classes that inherit from a base class using virtual. They are INT, FLOAT and STRING objects that I want to use in a scripting language. I'm trying to implement weak typing, but I don't want STRING objects to return copies of themselves when used in the following way (instead I would prefer to have a reference returned which can be used in copying): a = "hello "; b = "world"; c = a + b; I have written the following code as a mock example: #include <iostream> #include <string> #include <cstdio> #include <cstdlib> std::string dummy("<int object cannot return string reference>"); struct BaseImpl { virtual bool is_string() = 0; virtual int get_int() = 0; virtual std::string get_string_copy() = 0; virtual std::string const& get_string_ref() = 0; }; struct INT : BaseImpl { int value; INT(int i = 0) : value(i) { std::cout << "constructor called\n"; } INT(BaseImpl& that) : value(that.get_int()) { std::cout << "copy constructor called\n"; } bool is_string() { return false; } int get_int() { return value; } std::string get_string_copy() { char buf[33]; sprintf(buf, "%i", value); return buf; } std::string const& get_string_ref() { return dummy; } }; struct STRING : BaseImpl { std::string value; STRING(std::string s = "") : value(s) { std::cout << "constructor called\n"; } STRING(BaseImpl& that) { if (that.is_string()) value = that.get_string_ref(); else value = that.get_string_copy(); std::cout << "copy constructor called\n"; } bool is_string() { return true; } int get_int() { return atoi(value.c_str()); } std::string get_string_copy() { return value; } std::string const& get_string_ref() { return value; } }; struct Base { BaseImpl* impl; Base(BaseImpl* p = 0) : impl(p) {} ~Base() { delete impl; } }; int main() { Base b1(new INT(1)); Base b2(new STRING("Hello world")); Base b3(new INT(*b1.impl)); Base b4(new STRING(*b2.impl)); std::cout << "\n"; std::cout << b1.impl->get_int() << "\n"; std::cout << b2.impl->get_int() << "\n"; std::cout << b3.impl->get_int() << "\n"; std::cout << b4.impl->get_int() << "\n"; std::cout << "\n"; std::cout << b1.impl->get_string_ref() << "\n"; std::cout << b2.impl->get_string_ref() << "\n"; std::cout << b3.impl->get_string_ref() << "\n"; std::cout << b4.impl->get_string_ref() << "\n"; std::cout << "\n"; std::cout << b1.impl->get_string_copy() << "\n"; std::cout << b2.impl->get_string_copy() << "\n"; std::cout << b3.impl->get_string_copy() << "\n"; std::cout << b4.impl->get_string_copy() << "\n"; return 0; } It was necessary to add an if check in the STRING class to determine whether its safe to request a reference instead of a copy: Script code: a = "test"; b = a; c = 1; d = "" + c; /* not safe to request reference by standard */ C++ code: STRING(BaseImpl& that) { if (that.is_string()) value = that.get_string_ref(); else value = that.get_string_copy(); std::cout << "copy constructor called\n"; } If was hoping there's a way of moving that if check into compile time, rather than run time.

    Read the article

  • File IO with Streams - Best Memory Buffer Size

    - by AJ
    I am writing a small IO library to assist with a larger (hobby) project. A part of this library performs various functions on a file, which is read / written via the FileStream object. On each StreamReader.Read(...) pass, I fire off an event which will be used in the main app to display progress information. The processing that goes on in the loop is vaired, but is not too time consuming (it could just be a simple file copy, for example, or may involve encryption...). My main question is: What is the best memory buffer size to use? Thinking about physical disk layouts, I could pick 2k, which would cover a CD sector size and is a nice multiple of a 512 byte hard disk sector. Higher up the abstraction tree, you could go for a larger buffer which could read an entire FAT cluster at a time. I realise with today's PC's, I could go for a more memory hungry option (a couple of MiB, for example), but then I increase the time between UI updates and the user perceives a less responsive app. As an aside, I'm eventually hoping to provide a similar interface to files hosted on FTP / HTTP servers (over a local network / fastish DSL). What would be the best memory buffer size for those (again, a "best-case" tradeoff between perceived responsiveness vs. performance).

    Read the article

  • How to make this JavaScript much faster?

    - by Ralph
    Still trying to answer this question, and I think I finally found a solution, but it runs too slow. var $div = $('<div>') .css({ 'border': '1px solid red', 'position': 'absolute', 'z-index': '65535' }) .appendTo('body'); $('body *').live('mousemove', function(e) { var topElement = null; $('body *').each(function() { if(this == $div[0]) return true; var $elem = $(this); var pos = $elem.offset(); var width = $elem.width(); var height = $elem.height(); if(e.pageX > pos.left && e.pageY > pos.top && e.pageX < (pos.left + width) && e.pageY < (pos.top + height)) { var zIndex = document.defaultView.getComputedStyle(this, null).getPropertyValue('z-index'); if(zIndex == 'auto') zIndex = $elem.parents().length; if(topElement == null || zIndex > topElement.zIndex) { topElement = { 'node': $elem, 'zIndex': zIndex }; } } }); if(topElement != null ) { var $elem = topElement.node; $div.offset($elem.offset()).width($elem.width()).height($elem.height()); } }); It basically loops through all the elements on the page and finds the top-most element beneath the cursor. Is there maybe some way I could use a quad-tree or something and segment the page so the loop runs faster?

    Read the article

  • Get count matches in query on large table very slow

    - by Roy Roes
    I have a mysql table "items" with 2 integer fields: seid and tiid The table has about 35000000 records, so it's very large. seid tiid ----------- 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 3 4 4 1 4 2 The table has a primary key on both fields, an index on seid and an index on tiid. Someone types in 1 or more tiid values and now I would like to get the seid with most results. For example when someone types 1,2,3, I would like to get seid 2 and 4 as result. They both have 2 matches on the tiid values. My query so far: SELECT COUNT(*) as c, seid FROM items WHERE tiid IN (1,2,3) GROUP BY seid HAVING c = (SELECT COUNT(*) as c, seid FROM items WHERE tiid IN (1,2,3) GROUP BY seid ORDER BY c DESC LIMIT 1) But this query is extremly slow, because of the large table. Does anyone know how to construct a better query for this purpose?

    Read the article

  • Overhead of serving pages - JSPs vs. PHP vs. ASPXs vs. C

    - by John Shedletsky
    I am interested in writing my own internet ad server. I want to serve billions of impressions with as little hardware possible. Which server-side technologies are best suited for this task? I am asking about the relative overhead of serving my ad pages as either pages rendered by PHP, or Java, or .net, or coding Http responses directly in C and writing some multi-socket IO monster to serve requests (I assume this one wins, but if my assumption is wrong, that would actually be most interesting). Obviously all the most efficient optimizations are done at the algorithm level, but I figure there has got to be some speed differences at the end of the day that makes one method of serving ads better than another. How much overhead does something like apache or IIS introduce? There's got to be a ton of extra junk in there I don't need. At some point I guess this is more a question of which platform/language combo is best suited - please excuse the in-adroitly posed question, hopefully you understand what I am trying to get at.

    Read the article

  • SQL Database dilemma : Optimize for Querying or Writing?

    - by Harry
    I'm working on a personal project (Search engine) and have a bit of a dilemma. At the moment it is optimized for writing data to the search index and significantly slow for search queries. The DTA (Database Engine Tuning Adviser) recommends adding a couple of Indexed views inorder to speed up search queries. But this is to the detriment of writing new data to the DB. It seems I can't have one without the other! This is obviously not a new problem. What is a good strategy for this issue?

    Read the article

  • Optimize SQL query (Facebook-like application)

    - by fabriciols
    My application is similar to Facebook, and I'm trying to optimize the query that get user records. The user records are that he as src ou dst. The src is in usermuralentry directly, the dst list are in usermuralentry_user. So, a entry can have one src and many dst. I have those tables: mysql> desc usermuralentry ; +-----------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | +-----------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment | | user_src_id | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | | | private | tinyint(1) | NO | | NULL | | | content | longtext | NO | | NULL | | | date | datetime | NO | | NULL | | | last_update | datetime | NO | | NULL | | +-----------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ 10 rows in set (0.10 sec) mysql> desc usermuralentry_user ; +-------------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | +-------------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment | | usermuralentry_id | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | | | userinfo_id | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | | +-------------------+---------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ 3 rows in set (0.00 sec) And the following query to retrieve information from two users. mysql> explain SELECT * FROM usermuralentry AS a , usermuralentry_user AS b WHERE a.user_src_id IN ( 1, 2 ) OR ( a.id = b.usermuralentry_id AND b.userinfo_id IN ( 1, 2 ) ); +----+-------------+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------+---------+------+---------+------------------------------------------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------+---------+------+---------+------------------------------------------------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | b | ALL | usermuralentry_id,usermuralentry_user_bcd7114e,usermuralentry_user_6b192ca7 | NULL | NULL | NULL | 147188 | | | 1 | SIMPLE | a | ALL | PRIMARY | NULL | NULL | NULL | 1371289 | Range checked for each record (index map: 0x1) | +----+-------------+-------+------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------+---------+------+---------+------------------------------------------------+ 2 rows in set (0.00 sec) but it is taking A LOT of time... Some tips to optimize? Can the table schema be better in my application?

    Read the article

  • Calculating Growth-Rates by applying log-differences

    - by mropa
    I am trying to transform my data.frame by calculating the log-differences of each column and controlling for the rows id. So basically I like to calculate the growth rates for each id's variable. So here is a random df with an id column, a time period colum p and three variable columns: df <- data.frame (id = c("a","a","a","c","c","d","d","d","d","d"), p = c(1,2,3,1,2,1,2,3,4,5), var1 = rnorm(10, 5), var2 = rnorm(10, 5), var3 = rnorm(10, 5) ) df id p var1 var2 var3 1 a 1 5.375797 4.110324 5.773473 2 a 2 4.574700 6.541862 6.116153 3 a 3 3.029428 4.931924 5.631847 4 c 1 5.375855 4.181034 5.756510 5 c 2 5.067131 6.053009 6.746442 6 d 1 3.846438 4.515268 6.920389 7 d 2 4.910792 5.525340 4.625942 8 d 3 6.410238 5.138040 7.404533 9 d 4 4.637469 3.522542 3.661668 10 d 5 5.519138 4.599829 5.566892 Now I have written a function which does exactly what I want BUT I had to take a detour which is possibly unnecessary and can be removed. However, somehow I am not able to locate the shortcut. Here is the function and the output for the posted data frame: fct.logDiff <- function (df) { df.log <- dlply (df, "code", function(x) data.frame (p = x$p, log(x[, -c(1,2)]))) list.nalog <- llply (df.log, function(x) data.frame (p = x$p, rbind(NA, sapply(x[,-1], diff)))) ldply (list.nalog, data.frame) } fct.logDiff(df) id p var1 var2 var3 1 a 1 NA NA NA 2 a 2 -0.16136569 0.46472004 0.05765945 3 a 3 -0.41216720 -0.28249264 -0.08249587 4 c 1 NA NA NA 5 c 2 -0.05914281 0.36999681 0.15868378 6 d 1 NA NA NA 7 d 2 0.24428771 0.20188025 -0.40279188 8 d 3 0.26646102 -0.07267311 0.47041227 9 d 4 -0.32372771 -0.37748866 -0.70417351 10 d 5 0.17405309 0.26683625 0.41891802 The trouble is due to the added NA-rows. I don't want to collapse the frame and reduce it, which would be automatically done by the diff() function. So I had 10 rows in my original frame and am keeping the same amount of rows after the transformation. In order to keep the same length I had to add some NAs. I have taken a detour by transforming the data.frame into a list, add the NAs, and afterwards transform the list back into a data.frame. That looks tedious. Any ideas to avoid the data.frame-list-data.frame class transformation and optimize the function?

    Read the article

  • negative values in integer programming model

    - by Lucia
    I'm new at using the glpk tool, and after writing a model for certain integer problem and running the solver (glpsol) i get negative values in some constraint that shouldn't be negative at all: No.Row name Activity Lower bound Upper bound 8 act[1] 0 -0 9 act[2] -3 -0 10 act[2] -2 -0 That constraint is defined like this: act{j in J}: sum{i in I} d[i,j] <= y[j]*m; where the sets and variables used are like this: param m, integer, 0; param n, integer, 0; set I := 1..m; set J := 1..n; var y{j in J}, binary; As the upper bound is negative, i think the problem may be in the y[j]*m parte, of the right side of the inequality.. perhaps something with the multiplication of binarys? or that the j in that side of the constrait is undefined? i dont know... i would be greatly grateful if someone can help me with this! :) and excuse for my bad english thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Merging and splitting overlapping rectangles to produce non-overlapping ones

    - by uj
    I am looking for an algorithm as follows: Given a set of possibly overlapping rectangles (All of which are "not rotated", can be uniformly represented as (left,top,right,bottom) tuplets, etc...), it returns a minimal set of (non-rotated) non-overlapping rectangles, that occupy the same area. It seems simple enough at first glance, but prooves to be tricky (at least to be done efficiently). Are there some known methods for this/ideas/pointers? Methods for not necessarily minimal, but heuristicly small, sets, are interesting as well, so are methods that produce any valid output set at all.

    Read the article

  • Optimize SELECT DISTINCT CONCAT query in MySQL

    - by L. Cosio
    Hello! I'm running this query: SELECT DISTINCT CONCAT(ALFA_CLAVE, FECHA_NACI) FROM listado GROUP BY ALFA_CLAVE HAVING count(CONCAT(ALFA_CLAVE, FECHA_NACI)) > 1 Is there any way to optimize it? Queries are taking 2-3 hours on a table with 850,000 rows. Adding an index to ALFA_CLAVE and FECHA_NACI would work? Thanks in advanced

    Read the article

  • Tree iterator, can you optimize this any further?

    - by Ron
    As a follow up to my original question about a small piece of this code I decided to ask a follow up to see if you can do better then what we came up with so far. The code below iterates over a binary tree (left/right = child/next ). I do believe there is room for one less conditional in here (the down boolean). The fastest answer wins! The cnt statement can be multiple statements so lets make sure this appears only once The child() and next() member functions are about 30x as slow as the hasChild() and hasNext() operations. Keep it iterative <-- dropped this requirement as the recursive solution presented was faster. This is C++ code visit order of the nodes must stay as they are in the example below. ( hit parents first then the children then the 'next' nodes). BaseNodePtr is a boost::shared_ptr as thus assignments are slow, avoid any temporary BaseNodePtr variables. Currently this code takes 5897ms to visit 62200000 nodes in a test tree, calling this function 200,000 times. void processTree (BaseNodePtr current, unsigned int & cnt ) { bool down = true; while ( true ) { if ( down ) { while (true) { cnt++; // this can/will be multiple statesments if (!current->hasChild()) break; current = current->child(); } } if ( current->hasNext() ) { down = true; current = current->next(); } else { down = false; current = current->parent(); if (!current) return; // done. } } }

    Read the article

  • how to raise warning if return value is disregarded - gcc or static code check?

    - by Drakosha
    I'd like to see all the places in my code (C++) which disregard return value of a function. How can I do it - with gcc or static code analysis tool? Bad code example: int f(int z) { return z + (z*2) + z/3 + z*z + 23; } int main() { int i = 7; f(i); ///// <<----- here I disregard the return value return 1; } Update: it should work even if the function and its use are in different files free static check tool

    Read the article

  • How much faster are register based architectures than stack architectures?

    - by drozzy
    Studying compilers course, I am left wondering why use registers at all. It is often the case that the caller or callee must save the register value and then restore it. In a way they always end up using the stack anyway. Is creating additional complexity by using registers really worth it? Excuse my ignorance. Update: Please, I know that registers are faster than RAM and other types of cache. My main concern is that one has to "save" the value that is in the register and the "restore" it to. In both cases we are accessing some kind of cache. Would it not be better to use cache in the first place?

    Read the article

  • Has anyone ever successfully make index merge work for MySQL?

    - by user198729
    Setup: mysql> create table t(a integer unsigned,b integer unsigned); mysql> insert into t(a,b) values (1,2),(1,3),(2,4); mysql> create index i_t_a on t(a); mysql> create index i_t_b on t(b); mysql> explain select * from t where a=1 or b=4; +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | t | ALL | i_t_a,i_t_b | NULL | NULL | NULL | 3 | Using where | +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ Is there something I'm missing? Update mysql> explain select * from t where a=1 or b=4; +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | t | ALL | i_t_a,i_t_b | NULL | NULL | NULL | 1863 | Using where | +----+-------------+-------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ Version: mysql> select version(); +----------------------+ | version() | +----------------------+ | 5.1.36-community-log | +----------------------+ Has anyone ever successfully make index merge work for MySQL? I'll be glad to see successful stories here:)

    Read the article

  • Optimize INSERT / UPDATE / DELETE operation

    - by clime
    I wonder if the following script can be optimized somehow. It does write a lot to disk because it deletes possibly up-to-date rows and reinserts them. I was thinking about applying something like "insert ... on duplicate key update" and found some possibilities for single-row updates but I don't know how to apply it in the context of INSERT INTO ... SELECT query. CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION update_member_search_index() RETURNS VOID AS $$ DECLARE member_content_type_id INTEGER; BEGIN member_content_type_id := (SELECT id FROM django_content_type WHERE app_label='web' AND model='member'); DELETE FROM watson_searchentry WHERE content_type_id = member_content_type_id; INSERT INTO watson_searchentry (engine_slug, content_type_id, object_id, object_id_int, title, description, content, url, meta_encoded) SELECT 'default', member_content_type_id, web_member.id, web_member.id, web_member.name, '', web_user.email||' '||web_member.normalized_name||' '||web_country.name, '', '{}' FROM web_member INNER JOIN web_user ON (web_member.user_id = web_user.id) INNER JOIN web_country ON (web_member.country_id = web_country.id) WHERE web_user.is_active=TRUE; END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; EDIT: Schemas of web_member, watson_searchentry, web_user, web_country: http://pastebin.com/3tRVPPVi. (content_type_id, object_id_int) in watson_searchentry is unique pair in the table but atm the index is not present (there is no use for it). This script should be run at most once a day for full rebuilds of search index.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108  | Next Page >