View Single Post
Old 10-21-2024, 06:29 AM   #731
chaley
Grand Sorcerer
chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 12,489
Karma: 8065348
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Notts, England
Device: Kobo Libra 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by ownedbycats View Post
A composite column #timesread calls field_list_count().

A second composite column then uses $$#timesread (previously it was integer column) as a check. Would using field_list_count() directly in that composite increase performance?
I'm not sure what you are asking.

If you are asking if it would be faster to use field_list_count() instead of $$#timesread then the answer is yes. In the best case where $$#timesread has already been evaluated for the book then the performance improvement will be around 2 times. If $$#timesread hasn't yet been evaluated for the book then the performance improvement is at least 10 times.

If you are using $#timesread (not raw_field()) then the performance improvement of using field_list_count() directly is probably 10 to 100 times.

Last edited by chaley; 10-21-2024 at 06:55 AM. Reason: corrected spelling error
chaley is offline   Reply With Quote