Correl: Scott0_: In both cases it does not matter at all how the expressions are written in the WHERE
Keiter: Well, salle is trying to trick you a bit.
Albritton: Why would b,a be better for the latter conditions?
Keiter: Scott0_: because the range check is with a.
Correl: Scott0_: equal check for b and range check for a
Cabotaje: I was thinking of the order of the query only
Correl: Scott0_: There is no such order :
Keiter: Scott0_: right. We’re trying to get rid of that ***umption.
Correl: Scott0_: You seem to have some sort of fixation on this
Nesbitt: Umm range at the end is an order
Correl: Scott0_: It does not matter if you write: WHERE expr1 AND expr2 or WHERE expr2 AND expr1
Topps: Scott0_: Of the index, not the WHERE clause.
Keiter: Scott0_: are you thinking of the ORDER BY optimization?
Daffron: Those are still placements or order of arrangement
Correl: Scott0_: No matter what these expressions are the query will be executed exactly the same way
Sutphen: Ok then you confused me with index b,a is better for WHERE a 1 AND b = 2;
Gaither: You previously said the ranges need to go at the end, were you referring to the end of the index and not the query?
Keiter: Scott0_: end of the index!
Przedwiecki: Ok iu was thinking end of the query
Correl: Scott0_: Exactly. You seem fixated on the order of expressions in WHERE clause which is something you have to fix :
Keiter: Scott0_: it does *not* matter how you write your WHERE clause.
Fenty: Xgc: didn’t see your comment, your nick may be too small
Correl: Scott0_: Please read that again. Please! It does not matter if you write: WHERE expr1 AND expr2 or WHERE expr2 AND expr1 In both cases the query will be executed exactly the same way
Hammersmith: And ther eis no way to make a non-indexed query faster by order of the WHERE either
Dohnal: Not sure why my mind was set on that
Correl: Scott0_: Stop that please!
Keiter: Scott0_: stop.ordering.the.where.clause.
Correl: Scott0_: There is no such thing of “order of the WHERE”
Correl: Scott0_: Such thing does not exist. Stop thinking about it
Daddona: I was confirming what you said
Kekua: That it doesn’t exist
Delfino: Scott0_: We’re really not sure.
Shellhaas: Iw asnt asking about its existence
Correl: Scott0_: You asked: “There is no way to make something by non-existing-thing. Correct?”
Toepperwein: I like to end a discussion with a statement which summarizes to get confirmation that I understood properly
Michalski: THE ORDER OF THE WHERE CONDITIONS HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE SPEED OR EFFICIENCY OF THE QUERY
Correl: Scott0_: Still wrong.
Correl: Scott0_: Such thing does not exist
Keiter: Scott0_: there is no order in the WHERE clause – there is only operator precedence
Canino: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ORDER OF CONDITIONS IN THE WHERE SECTION
Keiter: Scott0_: WHERE a AND b OR c
Schultheiss: Even though we write them in an order
Correl: Scott0_: “The cure for cancer does not have impact on the human population” is nonsense until such cure does not exist
Correl: Scott0_: We don’t even know what you mean by “the order of the WHERE”
Loh: Yeah but you are saying there is no order, but ther clearly is an order when writing out the query. its that mysql does not recognize or consider it
Keiter: Scott0_: there’s no order. You can format it as prettily as you wish, however.
Keiter: Scott0_: there is precedence. Precedence matters.
Giannitti: I feel like im being trolled now