<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for perrinharkins</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/perrinharkins/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/perrinharkins/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:00:44 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: paperplanes. MySQL No-Nos: ORDER BY RAND()</title><link>http://www.paperplanes.de/2008/4/24/mysql_nonos_order_by_rand.html#comment-15052477</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The "order by" is not able to use the index on the primary key for sorting in either query, so it sounds like the only thing that's faster here is retrieving the rows for the internal sort.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">perrinharkins</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:00:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: paperplanes. MySQL No-Nos: ORDER BY RAND()</title><link>http://www.paperplanes.de/2008/4/24/mysql_nonos_order_by_rand.html#comment-15020327</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This doesn't make sense to me.  Why would the second query behave any better?  It still has to generate a random number for every row in the table and order by it.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">perrinharkins</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:44:11 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>