|
|
|
|
|
|
by ars
4497 days ago
|
|
|
> The worst case for the latter query is that it must aggregate over 999,910 rows. No, it already said it only took 100 rows, it can't get worse from that. Now if he actually meant the final result set was 100 rows (meaning after the group by) that's different. But that's not what he actually said, so the question is misleading. |
|
|