What I'm confused by though, is this line. "Note that INSERT DELAYED is slower than a normal INSERT if the table is not otherwise in use." What's the definition of "in use"? Does a logging table do that given that it's pretty much append-only/write-only?
Waynn On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Johan De Meersman <vegiv...@tuxera.be>wrote: > No, I think it's a good idea to do INSERT DELAYED here - it's only logging > application, and it's generally more important to not slow down the > application for that. It's only ever into a single table, so there's only > going to be a single delay thread for it anyway. > > Archive tables are a good idea, agreed, but I suspect that inserts into > that are going to be slower than into regular MyISAM because of the > compression, so why not use that overhead to (slightly) speed up your > end-user experience instead ? > > You can always partition the table based on the log date or whatever, if > your table risks getting too big. > > > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Wagner Bianchi <wagnerbianch...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Well, analyze if you need to create an excessive overhead into the MySQL >> Server because a simple INSERT. What you must have a look is it: >> >> - How much data this connection is delivering to MySQL's handlers? >> - A word DELAYED in this case is making MySQL surfer? >> >> Perhaps, you are sophisticating something that do not need it. Besides it, >> analyzing your "log table", I imagine this table can be an Archive table >> instead of MyISAM. Log tables or history tables can be controlled by >> Archive >> Storage Engine to have more compressed data. Although, Archive Storage >> Engine only supports SELECT and INSERT. Maybe, a good deal to you, get rid >> of you INSERT DELAYED: >> >> >> - ALTER TABLE <tbl_name> ENGINE = ARCHIVE; >> >> >> Best regards. >> -- >> WB >> >> >> 2010/11/29 WLGades <wlga...@gmail.com> >> >> > I'm adding a table to our site that logs all page loads. In the past, >> when >> > I built this, I used MyISAM and INSERT DELAYED. I went back to look at >> the >> > documentation to see if I should still do this, and saw this (taken from >> > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/insert-delayed.html): >> > >> > Note that INSERT DELAYED is slower than a normal INSERT if the table is >> not >> > otherwise in use. There is also the additional overhead for the server >> to >> > handle a separate thread for each table for which there are delayed >> rows. >> > This means that you should use INSERT DELAYED only when you are really >> sure >> > that you need it. >> > >> > Does that mean that I shouldn't use it if all I'm doing is INSERT >> > (essentially an append-only table), with only very occasional SELECTs? >> In >> > addition, the last time I took this approach for logging, it worked well >> > until the table got to 65M+ rows, when it would crash every now and >> then. >> > I >> > know I can archive off the table on a per month/quarter basis as well. >> > >> > Waynn >> > >> > > > > -- > Bier met grenadyn > Is als mosterd by den wyn > Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel > Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel >
