4 ms·
As I said already: "mysql could index strings" and "using a compound index over four varchar columns would've worked out well" are significantly different propo
by mst 5y ago
As I said already: "mysql could index strings" and "using a compound index over four varchar columns would've worked out well" are significantly different propositions.
To be more verbose about it - there is an important difference between "can be created" and "will perform sufficiently well on whatever (likely scavenged) hardware was assigned to the internal IT system in question."
I wouldn't be surprised if the "server" for this system was something like a repurposed Pentium 233 desktop with a cheap spinning rust IDE drive in it, and depending on just how badly the spammers were kicking the shit out of the mail system in question that's going to be a fun time.
- lern_too_spel 5y agoThey are not significantly different. It just means sorting using more than one column.
- merb 5y agoyou know for performance the new table would've needed a string index aswell?
- yuliyp 5y agoA single-column string index is a different beast to implement compared to a multi-column varchar index.
- jeremyjh 5y agoA composite index is literally just concatenating the fields and then indexing that value. This is not technology that was out of reach of MySQL in 2002 and there is no reason to presume it was so when TFA clearly described the problem as a complete lack of indexes.