<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: MySQL Performance &#8211; eliminating ORDER BY function</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/10/17/mysql-performance-eliminating-order-by-function/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/10/17/mysql-performance-eliminating-order-by-function/</link>
	<description>Everything about MySQL Performance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:23:57 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Karl Ravn</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/10/17/mysql-performance-eliminating-order-by-function/comment-page-1/#comment-497560</link>
		<dc:creator>Karl Ravn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:08:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/10/17/mysql-performance-eliminating-order-by-function/#comment-497560</guid>
		<description>And, if anyone skipped the fine prints in the docs, you can also remove the whole order by-clause, making indexed scans alot faster if the result is rather large, and the order of the rows doesn&#039;t matter. For example statistics or samples of rows. just type ORDER BY NULL (unsure of ansi-compatibility though).. Then the result will be in the order that they are in the database (based on creation, unless you have deleted rows). Even small queries can ease some load on a heavy-traffic db server with this technique.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And, if anyone skipped the fine prints in the docs, you can also remove the whole order by-clause, making indexed scans alot faster if the result is rather large, and the order of the rows doesn&#8217;t matter. For example statistics or samples of rows. just type ORDER BY NULL (unsure of ansi-compatibility though).. Then the result will be in the order that they are in the database (based on creation, unless you have deleted rows). Even small queries can ease some load on a heavy-traffic db server with this technique.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: techblog.tilllate.com &#187; Peter Zaitsev of the MySQL Performance Blog speaks in Zurich-</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/10/17/mysql-performance-eliminating-order-by-function/comment-page-1/#comment-197103</link>
		<dc:creator>techblog.tilllate.com &#187; Peter Zaitsev of the MySQL Performance Blog speaks in Zurich-</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:29:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/10/17/mysql-performance-eliminating-order-by-function/#comment-197103</guid>
		<description>[...] about MySQL performance optimization. He and his partners of Percona write about topics like eliminating ORDER BY function or Be careful when joining on CONCAT. Peter also held presentations at all Mysql Conferences. In [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] about MySQL performance optimization. He and his partners of Percona write about topics like eliminating ORDER BY function or Be careful when joining on CONCAT. Peter also held presentations at all Mysql Conferences. In [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/10/17/mysql-performance-eliminating-order-by-function/comment-page-1/#comment-183222</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 22:56:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/10/17/mysql-performance-eliminating-order-by-function/#comment-183222</guid>
		<description>Why are you surprised you&#039;re sorting by FIELD function - of course MySQL can&#039;t use Index to do such sort.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why are you surprised you&#8217;re sorting by FIELD function &#8211; of course MySQL can&#8217;t use Index to do such sort.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ladislav</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/10/17/mysql-performance-eliminating-order-by-function/comment-page-1/#comment-183141</link>
		<dc:creator>Ladislav</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:43:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/10/17/mysql-performance-eliminating-order-by-function/#comment-183141</guid>
		<description>Sorry, something&#039;s missing ... the problem is the filesort, of course</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, something&#8217;s missing &#8230; the problem is the filesort, of course</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ladislav</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/10/17/mysql-performance-eliminating-order-by-function/comment-page-1/#comment-183138</link>
		<dc:creator>Ladislav</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:40:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/10/17/mysql-performance-eliminating-order-by-function/#comment-183138</guid>
		<description>Slightly off-topic: talking about order by ... trying to find solution for a long time to optimize queries with &quot;order by field&quot; like this:

EXPLAIN SELECT id, name 
FROM table_name 
WHERE id IN ( 222839, 299872, 301535 )
ORDER BY FIELD( id, 222839, 299872, 301535 ) 

FROM EXPLAIN:
---------------------------------------
select_type 	SIMPLE
table		table_name [innodb]
type  	 	range
possible_keys  	PRIMARY
key  	 	PRIMARY
key_len  	4
ref  	 	NULL
rows  	 	3
Extra		Using where; Using filesort

Am I plain stupid or is it a bug (in the optimizer) in MySQL ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Slightly off-topic: talking about order by &#8230; trying to find solution for a long time to optimize queries with &#8220;order by field&#8221; like this:</p>
<p>EXPLAIN SELECT id, name<br />
FROM table_name<br />
WHERE id IN ( 222839, 299872, 301535 )<br />
ORDER BY FIELD( id, 222839, 299872, 301535 ) </p>
<p>FROM EXPLAIN:<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br />
select_type 	SIMPLE<br />
table		table_name [innodb]<br />
type  	 	range<br />
possible_keys  	PRIMARY<br />
key  	 	PRIMARY<br />
key_len  	4<br />
ref  	 	NULL<br />
rows  	 	3<br />
Extra		Using where; Using filesort</p>
<p>Am I plain stupid or is it a bug (in the optimizer) in MySQL ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lukas</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/10/17/mysql-performance-eliminating-order-by-function/comment-page-1/#comment-178169</link>
		<dc:creator>Lukas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:04:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/10/17/mysql-performance-eliminating-order-by-function/#comment-178169</guid>
		<description>So the lesson to learn is if you always apply a specific function on a column, you might as well apply it before the actual insert so that you can leverage the index properly. Or denormalize ..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So the lesson to learn is if you always apply a specific function on a column, you might as well apply it before the actual insert so that you can leverage the index properly. Or denormalize ..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
