类似MySQL的vs-LOCATE

有人知道哪一个更快吗：

SELECT * FROM table WHERE column LIKE '%text%';

或

---

增加于2015年4月20日：请同时阅读以下内容

---

第一个，但不多。主要是因为它不必进行额外的

>0

比较

mysql> SELECT BENCHMARK(100000000,LOCATE('foo','foobar'));
+---------------------------------------------+
| BENCHMARK(100000000,LOCATE('foo','foobar')) |
+---------------------------------------------+
|                                           0 |
+---------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (3.24 sec)

mysql> SELECT BENCHMARK(100000000,LOCATE('foo','foobar') > 0);
+-------------------------------------------------+
| BENCHMARK(100000000,LOCATE('foo','foobar') > 0) |
+-------------------------------------------------+
|                                               0 |
+-------------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (4.63 sec)


mysql> SELECT BENCHMARK(100000000,'foobar' LIKE '%foo%');
+--------------------------------------------+
| BENCHMARK(100000000,'foobar' LIKE '%foo%') |
+--------------------------------------------+
|                                          0 |
+--------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (4.28 sec)


mysql> SELECT @@version;
+----------------------+
| @@version            |
+----------------------+
| 5.1.36-community-log |
+----------------------+
1 row in set (0.01 sec)

---

我和Mchi一样做了一些测试。我想很难说哪一个更快。它看起来取决于子字符串的第一次出现

mysql> select benchmark(100000000, 'afoobar' like '%foo%');
+----------------------------------------------+
| benchmark(100000000, 'afoobar' like '%foo%') |
+----------------------------------------------+
|                                            0 |
+----------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (9.80 sec)

mysql> select benchmark(100000000, locate('foo', 'afoobar'));
+------------------------------------------------+
| benchmark(100000000, locate('foo', 'afoobar')) |
+------------------------------------------------+
|                                              0 |
+------------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (8.08 sec)

mysql> select benchmark(100000000, 'abfoobar' like '%foo%');
+-----------------------------------------------+
| benchmark(100000000, 'abfoobar' like '%foo%') |
+-----------------------------------------------+
|                                             0 |
+-----------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (10.55 sec)

mysql> select benchmark(100000000, locate('foo', 'abfoobar'));
+-------------------------------------------------+
| benchmark(100000000, locate('foo', 'abfoobar')) |
+-------------------------------------------------+
|                                               0 |
+-------------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (10.63 sec)

mysql> select benchmark(100000000, 'abcfoobar' like '%foo%');
+------------------------------------------------+
| benchmark(100000000, 'abcfoobar' like '%foo%') |
+------------------------------------------------+
|                                              0 |
+------------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (11.54 sec)

mysql> select benchmark(100000000, locate('foo', 'abcfoobar'));
+--------------------------------------------------+
| benchmark(100000000, locate('foo', 'abcfoobar')) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|                                                0 |
+--------------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (12.48 sec)

mysql> select @@version;
+------------+
| @@version  |
+------------+
| 5.5.27-log |
+------------+
1 row in set (0.01 sec)

---

+1至@Mchl，以最直接地回答问题

但我们应该记住，这两种解决方案都不能使用索引，因此它们必须进行表扫描

当你试图修补泰坦尼克号的船体时，试图在布或塑料粘合绷带之间做出决定是有点愚蠢的

---

对于这种类型的查询，需要一个。根据表的大小，这将是。

为什么不基准测试/配置文件并找出答案？@matro:什么是基准测试/配置文件。仅用于Entulike应该更快。与匹配的全文索引和

将快得多。
基准
是如何工作的，这些数字的准确性如何？
BENCHAMRK
只是将提供的表达式运行给定的次数。至于准确性，我不能告诉你太多。但我发现在精度方面还是不错的。MySQL中的全文版的问题是，它目前无法进行通配符搜索，只有前缀搜索（
foo*
将匹配
foobar
，但
*bar
不会匹配）。Apache Lucene和Solr具有相同的限制。Sphinx搜索支持中缀索引，因此您可以在模式的开头放置通配符。看见
mysql> select benchmark(100000000, 'afoobar' like '%foo%');
+----------------------------------------------+
| benchmark(100000000, 'afoobar' like '%foo%') |
+----------------------------------------------+
|                                            0 |
+----------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (9.80 sec)

mysql> select benchmark(100000000, locate('foo', 'afoobar'));
+------------------------------------------------+
| benchmark(100000000, locate('foo', 'afoobar')) |
+------------------------------------------------+
|                                              0 |
+------------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (8.08 sec)

mysql> select benchmark(100000000, 'abfoobar' like '%foo%');
+-----------------------------------------------+
| benchmark(100000000, 'abfoobar' like '%foo%') |
+-----------------------------------------------+
|                                             0 |
+-----------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (10.55 sec)

mysql> select benchmark(100000000, locate('foo', 'abfoobar'));
+-------------------------------------------------+
| benchmark(100000000, locate('foo', 'abfoobar')) |
+-------------------------------------------------+
|                                               0 |
+-------------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (10.63 sec)

mysql> select benchmark(100000000, 'abcfoobar' like '%foo%');
+------------------------------------------------+
| benchmark(100000000, 'abcfoobar' like '%foo%') |
+------------------------------------------------+
|                                              0 |
+------------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (11.54 sec)

mysql> select benchmark(100000000, locate('foo', 'abcfoobar'));
+--------------------------------------------------+
| benchmark(100000000, locate('foo', 'abcfoobar')) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|                                                0 |
+--------------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (12.48 sec)

mysql> select @@version;
+------------+
| @@version  |
+------------+
| 5.5.27-log |
+------------+
1 row in set (0.01 sec)