My experience with innodb is that show table status is slow. It's better to do show table status like 'my_table'
-Eric On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:47:41 -0500, Zhe Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, there, > > We have a huge database (84 tables of about 360 G of data in MyISAM > tables). Recently, we converted the entire database to InnoDB (in one > table space) and set up replication. Then we experienced some slower > performance. > > For example, "show table status" on the master took more than 90 > seconds if the database connection was made from local server, and > terribly 400 seconds if the connection was from a remote server. At the > moment "show table status" was issued, there were about 5 other queries > running. > > However, if the test was done on the slave, "show table status" > took approximately 90 seconds for each of the connections from the local > and remote servers, while only the slave thread was running in the > meanwhile. > > Our questions are: > 1. Is "show table status" generally extremely slow for InnoDB tables? > 2. Does connection from the local or remote server affect the speed of > "show table status"? > 3. Does the fact one server a master another a slave affect the speed of > "show table status"? > > Your reply would be greatly appreciated! Thank you in advance. > > Regards, > Zhe > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Eric Bergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bleated.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
