Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
>
> I think you've perhaps got a caching issue in those numbers.
I was thinking the same thing too but reversing the order I execute them
in doesn't change the numbers at all.
I also tried executing the slow query five times in a row (hoping the
results would be cahced) but the speed was always the same.
maybe there is something in the query using IN that allows it to be
cached while the query using the EXISTS cannot be cached?
How can I clear the cache so that I can re-run the fast query to see
what it's speed is withouth caching?
Jc
