• Optimization Problem with a subquery in an IN Operation
• Extremely Slow “Where in (Select… )” Subqueries GROUP BY / HAVING related
• Extremely Slow “Where in (Select… )” Subqueries GROUP BY / HAVING related”
• How to optimize subqueries and joins in MySQL (!)

Here’s the money shot from that last link above:

For each row in the outer query, it’s performing the inner query, even though there are no references in the inner query to values in the enclosing scope, because it has “optimized” the inner query by rewriting it to refer to the outer query. At this point, the query plan becomes nested loops. For each loop in the outer query, the query probes into the inner query.

Wow. That’s special. Translation. Don’t use subqueries in MySQL (at least not in 5.0.x). WTF.

Love coal now!

They need one of these for the bullshit ethanol stuff…

Here’s what I would have twittered to this point:

In other news, Congress is back in session. So who’s got dibs on reversing the military commissions act and restoring habeas corpus? Gonna let SCOTUS do all the heavy lifting here then, huh?

Wtf? *Still* talking about Sen. Wide Stance?

New iphones are sooooo yummy….

facebook is really taking off these days - is it the apps that are driving traffic?

Why is it that Don Imus gets the shaft but Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz walk off unscathed? In my mind, Imus has done comparatively little damage compared to these guys. So what’s the difference? Why the free pass?

People don’t seem to be capable of following the rules and effectively navigating a 4-way stop. I blame it on lack of maps (Ms. Teen SC was right).

Not that you didn’t know how Fox works but here’s an interesting video from the folks at foxattacks.com — the thing I hate most about this (and really all the news orgs are culpable on this account) is that they dumb things down so much. These are not black and white issues we are dealing with here and to draw a line in the sand in the way that they do, in my mind, provokes that sense of urgency that can destabilize and lead to something you don’t won’t, i.e., military conflict. We have to play the shell game much smarter than that. Have we not learned our lesson in Iraq?

The above is no. 1 on that list and, holy shit that’s awesome, it’s no wonder as to why. Thanks Read/WriteWeb!

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages.

NYTimes OpEd

The authors of this opinion piece are from the 82nd airborne (Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.). They are returning home soon - on the tail end of a 15-month tour in Iraq. I definitely encourage everyone to read this - given what these guys have gone through on their tour, what they will have to endure now that their names are in print (they are still on active duty) the least we can do is listen to what they have to say. I’m sure this will raise the ire of their ranking officers and those under political will in the pentagon…maybe…or maybe this is what a lot of them want to say anyway.

Their determination to finish their mission (last paragraph) is a sobering look into their world - to move on no matter what even when the mission is unfocused or clearly failing. All I have is complete respect and gratitude for our men and women in uniform…

As I write this, the Senate is in the midst of a debate on the Levin-Reed amendment that’s part of the Defense Authorization Bill. Reid is forcing an all-nighter since we can’t force cloture. Anyhow, I figure anybody can talk about the damn thing in general so I wanted to take time to debunk some of the excerpts from my own senator’s (Hutchison) floor speech.

It appears that the basic message is to tell the president to change strategy or to tell the generals what to do or to micromanage the war. All different kinds of messages are being proposed. But the bottom line, Mr. President, is that we cannot tell the Commander in Chief, the President, nor the commander on the ground, General Petraeus, how to do the jobs that we have asked them to do. You know, we heard from General Petraeus what the new strategy would be. I keep hearing people say, we need a new strategy. We need a new plan, a new plan. We’re in a new plan. And yet the United States Senate is saying, when the new plan is just in its infancy, when the surge of 30,000 troops has just been completed within the last two weeks, and yet we’re pulling the rug out from under the new plan.

The fact of the matter is that this is not a new plan at all. It’s a shifting of strategy in order to attempt to bring stability to the capitol so that some progress on the political side of things can be made. The surge has been in play since it was announced in late winter and as the number of troops have increased so have the number of deaths/injured as well as the number of attacks. Additionally, according to most publications that I’ve read the initial 30k number is still not sufficient to achieve the greater good of the vision that Gen. Patreus has laid out. Why not provide even more troops? Because the armed forces are already stretched thin and to bring more resources to bear would mean more spending and a draft which would be political suicide. There is sacrifice as long as it doesn’t cost too much politically. (I certainly don’t condone an even further escalation regardless - pouring salt on the wound is not a path to healing.)

We cannot be the greatest country on earth and say, don’t trust us if you’re our ally and don’t fear us if you’re our enemy. And that’s exactly what we would be doing if we leave Iraq because Congress sets a deadline, regardless of what is happening on the ground in Iraq.

Let’s talk a little about our allies. What a sham the “coalition of the willing” was, no? If a country sends 2 troops to Iraq they are considered part of the coalition (and what happens when they pull back those 2 troops?). Only our allies across the pond have sacrificed so much for the wrong reasons as we have. The bottom line is that we are not winning over the hearts and minds of those around the world as we strike pre-emptively, stock secret prisons on foreign soil without permission and keep guantanamo bay open. How can our allies trust us when we no longer trust ourselves or have faith in our own government?

There’s no indication that anyone wants to ignore events happening on the ground. There is a quest for redeployment exactly because we are paying attention to matters on the ground. Our shotgun, cowboy approach has only inflamed the Middle East and provided a breeding ground for the very enemy that we wish to extinguish.

This is about a war on terror and protecting our freedom. This is not about Iraq in a bubble. It is about making sure that we kill terrorism in the world before it ruins everyone’s way of life and takes freedom from everyone.

Complete, utter bullshit. This is *not* about the war on terror. The war in Iraq is a war based on lies. No single line item in the laundry list of changing reasons for going to war in Iraq has turned out to be true. We have generated a terrorist setting of our own doing and we must extract the catalyst (our occupation of Iraq).

Sure, we want to “kill terrorism” but there is this notion of the “sky is falling” policy towards the debacle of our own making that is Iraq. Let’s undo the policies that have created this debacle - there is a better path to fighting terrorism than the cowboy diplomacy used by this administration.

This is about making sure that Iraq does not become a stronghold for terrorists. This is to make sure that al Qaeda cannot take over Iraq, terrorize the people as they have done in Afghanistan for years, have the oil revenue that would feed their terrorism and spread it throughout the world. We are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq.

Iraq is a stronghold for terrorists as long as we are there. al-qaeda in iraq has a foothold in iraq and are merely part of the deeply complex stage set, but that is only a small portion of the larger problem. And the assertion that we are “fighting al Qaeda in Iraq” is a false point made only to continually tie Iraq to 9-11. We are soo past that talking point (read: lie). there is agreement among most that al-queda in iraq is completely separate and merely inspired by al-qaeda that now sits in pakistan (which is another story).

I met with a group of veterans today who had come back from Iraq. They were so strong and so firm. It was uplifting to talk to them, just as it is uplifting to talk to any of our active duty military. But to talk to those who have had the boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, who really know what’s happening, you just can’t fail to believe that we have to give this a chance, even if the armchair generals back here in Washington have misgivings.

It’s amazing to me how quickly politicians will grab someone in a uniform to cover up their own failed policies. Everyone wants to say they have the pulse of the armed forces. So many polls, so little time. The truth is that their sentiments should be part of the country’s general mood towards war policy. Why are they separate? They are a “volunteer” force and while they have suspended a number of rights in order to serve they are yet still a citizen of this country, no? I think the perspective of some senators on this issue is completely shallow and self-serving.

As for the armchair generals in Washington, I’m surprised that the distinguished senator from Texas would be so bold as to say that utilizing the will of the political bodies that represent the entirety of this great country should be ignored. Is that what we’re saying? Really, the debate in Iraq has for far too long been non-existant and full of ignorance. How many senators/reps understand the history of the middle east or the forces of policy and politics at play there in order to make an informed and educated decision about how best to leverage our diplomatic and military resources? We are not generals, but we are citizens - and this is *our* army and you serve us. How sad that you represent the will of your party over the will of your constituency (and the greater good).

This is the policy that the United States Senate must stand for and that is to stand for the integrity of America. The integrity of the greatest country on earth, that we will be a formidable enemy and a reliable ally - that we will not flinch when times get tough. It is a legitimate argument about why we got here or when we should have had more troops or how the war has been run up to now. That is legitimate. We can talk about that and it is a legitimate area to debate. But what is not legitimate, Mr. President, is because it is a very tough time that we would say ‘times are too tough, America must leave.’ What kind of honor would that bring on our country and this United States Senate? None. It would not bring honor on this country to cut and run because times are tough.

Oh. “Cut and Run” - my favorite line (that’s so completely beneath you Hutchison). Who is talking about leaving iraq in a precipitous withdrawal? Your fellow senator, Mr. Cornyn, praised his passed amendment of today that says that the senate does not favor such a withdrawal. And no one does. It’s never been about “getting out” because it’s “too tough.” It is about debating how best to leverage the military to strike effectively at the heart of terrorism in the heart of the middle east and to play a role in stabilizing where absolutely necessary. It’s about generating policy that doesn’t inflame further the notion that US imperialism is alive and well and exists to keep the islamic world under it’s thumb. If we want to bring honor back to this country we simply need to undo the policies and path of destruction this administration has left in its wake. If we want to bring honor back to this country we need to redeploy and reconsider our path to contain terrorism and bring stability and relative peace to the middle east.

The flawed policies of this administration finally leave us in the uneasy position of looking in the mirror, forcing self-examination to find a better path. The existence of debate is healthy and long overdue. I can only hope that reasoned debate will breed reasoned policy.

I *have* to share this video because I think all of us have just fucking had it up to here with the bullshit news that the US Media continues to churn out. Thank you, Mika, for trying to maintain some sense of decency and put back some respectability into US Journalism. We need more of this.