Joshua,
- Original Message -
From: "Joshua Chamas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 11:33 PM
Subject: RE: Concurrency Question
> Quoting Marvin Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It
Quoting Marvin Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> It suggests below to bundle transactions into one commit, at what point does
> this become unecessary ?
>
> For example I have 2 threads each doing 12,000 inserts in 1 commit each.
> Would I really gain any performance if I did these 24,000 inser
he machine ?
Marvin.
-Original Message-
From: Josh Chamas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 05 July 2004 20:23
To: Javier Diaz
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Concurrency Question
Javier Diaz wrote:
> Hi
>
> We have changed all our tables to InnoDB and now the server is not a
Javier Diaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3- Replication of these tables to another server ??
This is classical solution to the problem and probably the easiest to provide.
Just do SELECTs on the slave server.
--
For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita
This
Javier Diaz wrote:
Hi
We have changed all our tables to InnoDB and now the server is not able to
handle the load, even when we are not running the SELECTs statements against
these tables yet.
As I mentioned in my email we make a lots of INSERTS and UPDATES in these
tables (more than 3000 per second
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:48:50 +0100 , Javier Diaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I really don't like the idea to set innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit to 2, the
> information in these tables is important. On the other hand there is nothing
> I can do from the point of view of the number of transaction
At 18:48 +0100 7/5/04, Javier Diaz wrote:
Hi
I really don't like the idea to set innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit to 2, the
information in these tables is important. On the other hand there is nothing
I can do from the point of view of the number of transactions. Each process
run its own set of INSER
nt: 05 July 2004 17:58
To: Javier Diaz
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Concurrency Question
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 16:07:58 +0100 , Javier Diaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> We have changed all our tables to InnoDB and now the server is not able to
> handle the l
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 16:07:58 +0100 , Javier Diaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We have changed all our tables to InnoDB and now the server is not able to
> handle the load, even when we are not running the SELECTs statements against
> these tables yet.
>
> As I mentioned in my email we make a lot
?
I would appreciate any ideas you can have, we really need this ASAP.
Thanks
Javier`
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 July 2004 10:42
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Concurrency Question
Javier Diaz <[EMAIL PROTEC
Javier Diaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/07/2004 10:28:32:
> We have some tables to record different data of the activity in our
website.
> The number of INSERT, DELETE and UPDATE operations in these tables is
huge
> (it could be more than 3000 a second). So far we don't have any speed
> prob
11 matches
Mail list logo