Re^5: Does Search::InvertedIndex module live up to billing?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Does Search::InvertedIndex module live up to billing? by punch_card_don (Curate) on Oct 21, 2004 at 20:49 UTC
Sure thing: CREATE TABLE `theTable` ( `response_id` smallint(5) unsigned NOT NULL +default '0', `respondent_id` smallint(5) unsigned NOT NULL default '0 +', PRIMARY KEY (`response_id`,`respondent_id`) ) TYPE=MyISAM [download] I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this infamous query analyzer - so I'll read up on it on the web.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^7: Does Search::InvertedIndex module live up to billing? by perrin (Chancellor) on Oct 21, 2004 at 21:26 UTC
You are joining on respondent_id and searching on response_id so you need indexes on both of those. KEY (response_id), KEY (respondent_id)	[reply]
Re^8: Does Search::InvertedIndex module live up to billing? by punch_card_don (Curate) on Oct 21, 2004 at 21:31 UTC
OK - I'll try the individual indexes instead of the compound primary key, and changing order of declaration...... Of course, it take about two hours to repopulate the database, it'll be tomorrow before I have results. Thanks for the help! It really is much appreciated.	[reply]
Re^9: Does Search::InvertedIndex module live up to billing? by perrin (Chancellor) on Oct 21, 2004 at 22:26 UTC
Re^7: Does Search::InvertedIndex module live up to billing? by punch_card_don (Curate) on Oct 21, 2004 at 21:26 UTC
Well, I found and tried the EXPLAIN command on the two-column query. Here's what it gave me: +-------+--------+---------------+---------+---------+---------------- +----+------+--------------------------+ \| table \| type \| possible_keys \| key \| key_len \| ref + \| rows \| Extra \| +-------+--------+---------------+---------+---------+---------------- +----+------+--------------------------+ \| B \| ref \| PRIMARY \| PRIMARY \| 2 \| const + \| 3007 \| Using where; Using index \| \| A \| eq_ref \| PRIMARY \| PRIMARY \| 4 \| const,B.respond +ent \| 1 \| Using where; Using index \| +-------+--------+---------------+---------+---------+---------------- +----+------+--------------------------+ [download] Unfortunately I have no idea what this means. More reading... Edit by castaway - swapped pre tags for code tags	[reply] [d/l]