Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 4084784
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 20, 20262026-05-20T18:29:03+00:00 2026-05-20T18:29:03+00:00

I have a table with ~1.2m rows in it. It has 6 columns indexed,

  • 0

I have a table with ~1.2m rows in it. It has 6 columns indexed, including one varchar(255) field that contains urls.

I need to be able to scan the table to see whether a url exists in the table, hence the index, but I’m wondering whether I would see a performance gain by reducing the index size to around 50?

Of course this would mean that it may have to scan more rows when searching for a url in the database.. but I only have to do this query about once every 30 seconds, so I’m wondering if the smaller index size would be worth it. Thoughts?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-20T18:29:04+00:00Added an answer on May 20, 2026 at 6:29 pm

    Two reasons why lowering maybe better – (Assuming your index is useful)

    1) Indexes too get loaded in memory, so there maybe a rare possibility that your index size grows to an extent that it is not completely cacheable in memory. Thats when you will see a performance hit (with all the new hardware specs… hardly a possibility with 1.2M rows, but still worth noting).

    2) Manytimes, just the first ‘n’ characters are good enough to be able to quickly identify each record. You may not need to index the whole 255 characters at all.

    Two reason why you may not care –

    1) As stated, you may never see your indexes growing to be out of your key buffer, so why worry.

    2) You will need to determine the first ‘n’ characters, and even after that the performance will less than or equal to a full index… never more. Do you really need to spend time on that? Is it worth the possible loss of accuracy?

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

We have a MyISAM table with approximately 75 milion rows that has 5 columns:
I have a very simple table with two columns, but has 4.5M rows. CREATE
I have a table with one column and four rows. Each tr has a
I have a table that has multiple rows with the following fields: PersonName SongName
I have a large table (~1M rows now, soon ~10M) that has two ranked
I have a table, has many rows. for example one of from rows(all rows
I have a table, has many rows. for example one of from rows(all rows
I have a table with 10 columns that need to be searchable (the table
I have a table with around 6 million rows and has many columns with
I need to store a large table (several millions or rows) that contains a

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.