Using SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS defiantly appears to be situational on the query (at least …) .90 for the count Data & FOUND_ROWS = .913 1) .90 for the data with SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS. No performance impact when using SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS 2) .013 for FOUND_ROWS() query

… clause: mysql> SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS * FROM count_test WHERE b = 555 ORDER BY c LIMIT 5; Results with SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS are following: for…). Let’s take a look at EXPLAINs: mysql> explain SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS * FROM count_test WHERE b = 999 ORDER BY c LIMIT 5…

… decided to drop SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS. Instead I will do a second query on a (stored) function, which delivers a count(*) for the pattern… count. Queries are now simply: quick. In short: when using large tables, which stay constant for a while, avoid SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS; cache the counts…

… SQL_NO_CACHE count(*) FROM count_test WHERE b = 666;”, count is performed on index without access physical data. But in “EXPLAIN SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS * FROM count_test WHERE b = 999 ORDER BY c LIMIT 5;”, mysql uses index to determine number of rows to examine…

Hello, I tried the SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS/FOUND_ROWS query method vs the select/count() query method, both using WHERE … LIKE ‘%…%’ , ORDER BY, and LIMIT … real table with ~72,000 entries (MYISAM). Result: The SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS/FOUND_ROWS method is 90% faster than the select/count() method in this case!

…sql = “SELECT FOUND_ROWS()”; $rows_count = $this->fetchOne($sql); ?> 后记：这种方法刚开始我…¯¦è§ï¼šhttp://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/08/28/to-sql_calc_found_rows-or-not-to-sql_calc_found_rows/ Mysql [...]

… use count this not will give you true result. in this case you have to use mysql_num_rows or SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS , mysql_num_rows runs very slow. we have only one option it is SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS. if any one…

I have to say that COUNT(*) is faster so far. Query with LIMIT and SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS: 0.80 – 1.00 seconds Query without SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS: 0.06 seconds Added COUNT(*) query: 0.09-0.12 seconds