Re: __index returns truncated to one, why?

[Sean Conner <sean@...>]

It was thus said that the Great Geoff Leyland once stated:
> On 11/04/2014, at 10:44 am, Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@trms.com> wrote:
> 
> > Whenever I hear about avoiding temporary tables, I wonder if the
> > concern is based on theory, micro benchmarking or real-world
> > application problems.
> 
> I’ve just had a “real world” situation where reducing temporary table
> creation halved the time it took to perform a computation.  Granted, the
> original code was probably a bit wasteful with them, and algorithmic
> improvements made a bigger difference, but temporary tables were a
> measurable factor.

  I'd be interested to know of the CPU, CPU speed and type (general terms)
of computation.  Also, the actual difference.  It would have to be fairly
heavy CPU wise (such as a tight loop) for that to matter (in my experience). 
I ask since I have a syslog daemon [1] that creates a table per log message,
and it can handle thousands of messages per second on a modern Intel
Pentium.

  -spc (And I'm writing a server in Lua for work [2])

[1]	https://github.com/spc476/syslogintr

[2]	Although both are probably more IO bound than CPU bound.