MySQL ST_CONTAINS spatial queries extremely slow with spatial indexes is a software problem in Developer Tools. It has a heat score of 73 (demand) and competition score of 49 (existing solutions), creating an opportunity score of 74.5.
MySQL ST_CONTAINS queries for location data joins are taking ~16 seconds to retrieve only 1,000 records. Adding spatial indexes, forcing index use, and switching to ST_Within or MBRContains functions provide no performance improvement, making large-scale record processing infeasible.
Demand intensity based on mentions and searches
Market saturation from existing solutions
Gap between demand and supply
5 total mentions tracked
Heat Score Over Time
Tracking demand intensity for MySQL ST_CONTAINS spatial queries extremely slow with spatial indexes
Competition Over Time
Market saturation trends
Opportunity Evolution
Combined view of heat vs competition showing the opportunity gap
Adjacent problems in the same space
Anonymized quotes showing where this pain point was expressed
“AI Won't Replace Us Developers Yet (A Humble Reality Check) So there I was neck-deep in a MySQL nightmare. 🤯 Tried ChatGPT. Struck out. Claude? Nope. Gemini was a total bust as well. These AI models were giving me solutions that looked technically correct but were just wrong. Spent hours frustrated ready to tear my hair out. Then I did what we ALL do, Stack Overflow. And boom some legend had posted EXACTLY my problem from two years ago. With a solution written by an actual person. Commented, ex”
“Performance issue with ST_CONTAINS I have a performance issue with a query in MySQL. I need to compare location data and am trying to use ST_CONTAINS in a join. However, I am having a performance issue as it is quite slow, taking around 16 seconds to retrieve 1,000 records. I need to process several thousand records in the query. I am searching the internet for the best solution. I have already tried using other checking functions, ST_Within and MBRContains. I added a spatial index for the geo c”
“Postgres not using index with varchar_pattern_ops for pattern matching query I have a query in PostgresSQL accessing a big table using a LIKE clause for pattern matching: [code] The query has very good selectivity: [code] The application somtimes uses [code] at the end of the pattern, so replacing the [code] by [code] is not always possible I have created an index on that column with the matching operator definition: [code] But still, the pattern matching query does a Seq Scan: [code] If I repla”
“Why does a DELETE with a JOIN on partitioned columns in BigQuery cost more than dropping specific partitions? I have a large BigQuery table, big_table, around 5 TB in size. It is partitioned by the column partition_date, which has about 2000 distinct values. I also have a smaller table, small_table, which contains only two distinct partition_date values and lists specific (partition_date, product_id) combinations that should be deleted from big_table. Example: -- big_table (partitioned by partit”
Market saturation based on known solutions and category signals
Several solutions exist but there is room for differentiation through better UX, pricing, or focus.
Based on heuristics. Will improve as real competition data is collected.
If you pursue this pain point...
Similar problems you might want to explore
| Pain Point | Heat | Competition | Opportunity | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mobile analytics SDKs silently collect identifiable data software | 76 | 40 | 100.00 | ↑+63.8% |
| Lack of Vulkan-based browser alternatives software | 74 | 30 | 86.33 | ↑+17.5% |
| AI marketing hype misrepresents actual developer capabilities software | 83 | 51 | 81.37 | ↑+18.6% |
| AI coding session context lost when switching tools software | 79 | 59 | 66.95 | ↑+11.3% |
| LLM bias reinforcement lacking safeguards software | 64 | 43 | 64.50 | ↑+36.2% |