When you use --master-data=1, it executes the CHANGE MASTER command first
before adding data.
Do the following to verify this:
Run 'mysqldump --single-transaction --master-data=1 -h... -u... -p...
DataDump1.sql
Run 'mysqldump --single-transaction --master-data=2 -h... -u... -p...
Thanks for the reply Rolando.
In both the examples I provided (pipe and text file) the CHANGE MASTER
command appears at the top of the data import and is uncommented and
therefore executes before the data is imported. I don't think this is a
problem because the slave only starts replicating from
.
From: Mark Maunder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:17 PM
To: Rolando Edwards
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Possible bug in mysqldump?
Thanks for the reply Rolando.
In both the examples I provided (pipe and text file) the CHANGE MASTER
*To:* Rolando Edwards
*Cc:* mysql@lists.mysql.com
*Subject:* Re: Possible bug in mysqldump?
Thanks for the reply Rolando.
In both the examples I provided (pipe and text file) the CHANGE MASTER
command appears at the top of the data import and is uncommented and
therefore executes before the data
Peter Brawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/12/2005 04:27:18
PM:
James,
Both ...
SELECT ...
FROM a, b LEFT JOIN c ON a.x=c.y
and
SELECT ...
FROM a
LEFT JOIN B USING (x )
LEFT JOIN c ON a.x=c.y
work up to and including version 5.0.10, not in 5.0.11, 12 or 13.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Due to the complexity of my query I don't know how to get this down to a
simple test case to demonstrate the error.
This works under mysql 4.1.8 btw, so it is failing due to a change
introduced recently. It also worked under mysql 5.0.9, but I
James Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/12/2005 09:57:51 AM:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Due to the complexity of my query I don't know how to get this down to a
simple test case to demonstrate the error.
This works under mysql 4.1.8 btw, so it is failing due to a
James,
You can reproduce that error by writing ...
SELECT ...
FROM a, b INNER JOIN c ON a.x=c.y
The error goes away if you instead write ...
SELECT ...
FROM b, a INNER JOIN c ON A.x=c.y
so you might try swapping
FROM items i
, nams.netids n
PB
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Brawley wrote:
James,
You can reproduce that error by writing ...
SELECT ...
FROM a, b INNER JOIN c ON a.x=c.y
The error goes away if you instead write ...
SELECT ...
FROM b, a INNER JOIN c ON A.x=c.y
I will try it.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Brawley wrote:
James,
You can reproduce that error by writing ...
SELECT ...
FROM a, b INNER JOIN c ON a.x=c.y
The error goes away if you instead write ...
SELECT ...
FROM b, a INNER JOIN c ON A.x=c.y
so you might try
James Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/12/2005 02:06:26 PM:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Brawley wrote:
James,
You can reproduce that error by writing ...
SELECT ...
FROM a, b INNER JOIN c ON a.x=c.y
The error goes away if you instead write
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SELECT...
FROM items i
INNER JOIN nams.netids n
INNER JOIN ...
...
Does the problem remain? If it goes away, this would be useful information
to include in your bug report.
Thank you for the suggestion, but it led
James,
Both ...
SELECT ...
FROM a, b LEFT JOIN c ON a.x=c.y
and
SELECT ...
FROM a
LEFT JOIN B USING (x )
LEFT JOIN c ON a.x=c.y
work up to and including version 5.0.10, not in 5.0.11, 12 or 13.
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=13832 reports...
"The two statements below are quite
Scott Klarenbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm using Mysql 5.0.7 and I've noticed the following very strange
functionality, perhaps someone can shed some light on it for me.
Try using the EXPLAIN statement to get some insight into what MySQL
is thinking.
Scott.
--
MySQL General Mailing
I have confirmed that this problem exhibits itself on the Mysql AB
compiled binaries that are compiled with gcc, both Standard and Max, but
does _not_ exhibit itself on the Mysql AB binary built with the Intel C++
Compiler 8.1 (mysql-standard-4.1.12-pc-linux-gnu-i686-icc-glibc23.tar.gz).
I have
From: James Nobis
SELECT DISTINCT Customer.id, Customer.name
FROM Customer
LEFT JOIN `Order` ON Customer.id = Order.customer_id
INNER JOIN OrderLines ON Order.id = OrderLines.order_id
AND OrderLines.product_id =9
WHERE Order.customer_id IS NULL
I expect customers to have placed at least one
James Nobis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/21/2005
10:44:07 AM:
The problem is something fairly simple but yet MySQL seems to make this
complicated. Essentially, find a list of customers who have not
bought product
X ever. (Customers have orders, orders have order line items). All
3
There is nothing wrong with what MySQL is doing. Your query is
incorrect for what you are looking for. Step through your query and
you'll see your error.
SELECT DISTINCT Customer.id, Customer.name
FROM Customer
LEFT JOIN `Order` ON Customer.id = Order.customer_id
You now have a list of the all
Thanks everyone for such quick and thorough responses!
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
James Nobis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/21/2005
10:44:07 AM:
The problem is something fairly simple but yet MySQL seems to make this
complicated. Essentially, find a list of customers who have not
bought product
X
Hello.
The value of wait_timeout is initialized from wait_timeout variable or
from the global interactive_timeout variable, depending on the type of client.
Put interactive_timeout=10 in your config file. See:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Server_system_variables.html
Andrew
On Thu 2003-03-20 at 14:01:52 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a table with a column defined as the following.
hash CHAR(16) BINARY NOT NULL
Most data inserts fine. However, if data has trailing white space
(ASCII character 32), it seems to be getting truncated by MySQL during
the
Rich,
Friday, July 26, 2002, 5:59:37 PM, you wrote:
RA Looks as if the MySQL DB crashed and recovered.
RA Linux 2.4.18-5smp #1 SMP
RA MySQL version 3.23.51
From the MySQL server while running mtop 26JUL02 ~6:45AM PST:
RA Unable to execute show procs [Lost connection to MySQL server during
Pada Fri, 26 Jul 2002 07:59:37 -0700
Rich Amick [EMAIL PROTECTED] menulis :
Searched G for mysqld_list_processes:
The above happens if a new user logs in at the same time you do
mysql_list_processes(). This is fixed in the newest MySQL 3.22
version!
--We are using version 3.23.51 -
Chuck,
- Original Message -
From: Chuck Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: mailing.database.mysql
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:29 AM
Subject: possible bug: alter table trashed foreign key constraints in innodb
sql query
In version 3.23.49a when using an innodb table, alter
Chuck,
Tuesday, July 09, 2002, 4:26:31 AM, you wrote:
CS In version 3.23.49a when using an innodb table, alter table appears to
CS corrupt foreign key constraints. Try the following test case:
It's described in the MySQL manual:
http://www.mysql.com/doc/S/E/SEC446.html
and fixed since
Robert,
Wednesday, May 22, 2002, 12:18:22 PM, you wrote:
RV I have a problem in an Apache module which connects to MySQL using C
RV API for counting banner views and clicks.
RV This module creates a report table for each day. This table is called
RV report_MMDD, where MMDD is the
Hi Egor,
Thanks for your reply.
What table was deleted? report_YYYMMDD?
Yes.
RV MySQL Log file says nothing.
Nothing about table delete or nothing about error?
Nope.
Robert Vetter
Internet Application Developer
Kontor23 GmbH
Ottenser Hauptstrasse 56-62
22765 Hamburg
Tel.: 040/380893-14
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Michael Widenius wrote:
Hi!
Michael == Michael B Venezia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Description:
Michael Possible Bug in UPDATE in MySQL 4.0.1
cut
Michael Attempting backtrace. You can use the following information to find out
Michael where mysqld died.
Michael,
Sunday, May 19, 2002, 12:56:00 PM, you wrote:
MBV Description:
MBV Possible Bug in UPDATE in MySQL 4.0.1
MBV The following is the message in the error log...
MBV Number of processes running now: 0
MBV 020519 04:55:30 mysqld restarted
MBV 020519 4:55:30 InnoDB:
I have realized my error. Please disregard and ignore.
- Original Message -=20
From: David Potter=20
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]=20
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 1:53 PM
Subject: Possible bug or corruption ?
Hello,
I am trying to figure
anti spam words: database,sql,query,table
you can first put it here to be sure it's a bug
be specific, showing table definitions, query that is not working
please provide OS, mySQL version, any relevant information
Etienne
Karl J. Stubsjoen wrote:
database,sql,query,table
Hello,
Where
I tested this with 3.23.38 and was not able to reproduce the
problem. The UPDATE works as supposed for me.
Did you compile the server yourself? If so, try an official binary. If
not, please post more information, like where you got your binary
from, which version it is and so on. Use
Hi.
I tested this with 3.23.38 and was not able to reproduce the
problem. The UPDATE works as supposed for me.
Did you compile the server yourself? If so, try an official binary. If
not, please post more information, like where you got your binary
from, which version it is and so on. Use
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:48:36 -0500
Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't be opposed to implementing this as a part of the join
optimizer in MySQL, in fact, I've been reading through it for a few
days now... However, it seems like it would be a large project as the
join optimizer does not
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 13:03:02 -0500
Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, answering my own email, what I thought was a bug is not one at
all. I was mistaken in thinking that MySQL paid any attention to the
WHERE conditions when optimizing the join order beyond determining
which keys are used
Eric writes:
Well, answering my own email, what I thought was a bug is not one at
all. I was mistaken in thinking that MySQL paid any attention to the
WHERE conditions when optimizing the join order beyond determining
which keys are used for the join, correct?
This is really terrible
I have no problem using STRAIGHT_JOIN, etc. My problem is really just
figuring out the optimal join order. Is doing a SELECT COUNT on
each of the tables I'm going to join the way to do it? Isn't there
potential for the count to take as long as the full query processing
would take (especially
The information I require is the number of rows that will come from a
SELECT which places a certain range restriction on an unindexed
attribute...and I need this to not take much time relative to actually
executing the query (constant time would be best).
eric.
On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at
Eric writes:
I have no problem using STRAIGHT_JOIN, etc. My problem is really just
figuring out the optimal join order. Is doing a SELECT COUNT on
each of the tables I'm going to join the way to do it? Isn't there
potential for the count to take as long as the full query processing
would
Well, I would definitely have to do the count for each query; not
because my table sizes are changing (although they are at a fairly
rapid rate), but because the number of rows I want to select is vastly
different between queries. This is actually a self-join (refer to
first emails from me to
Well, answering my own email, what I thought was a bug is not one at
all. I was mistaken in thinking that MySQL paid any attention to the
WHERE conditions when optimizing the join order beyond determining
which keys are used for the join, correct?
This is really terrible for queries like mine
Friend,
I learned that 8 + 4 = 12. Maybe you just missed that class ... :D
Before talk, think. ;)
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:31:23 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 8.00user1
| 14.00 user2
| 160.00 user 3
|
| Now, where I went to school, this adds up to 184!
Cya
Antonio
, July 27, 2001 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: possible bug in sum() function
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the query was:
select sum(worktime),user from timecard where tcacct=project group by user;
the answer was:
8.00user1
14.00 user2
160.00 user
Bruce Ferrell writes:
I'm replying to the list because I got so many of these back:
Ya know gang... some days it just doesn't pay to get outta bed.
Yes, indeed, this is the exact reason my wife doesn't let me do arithmatic :)
Sorry and to the guy who replied with no spam please?
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 5:31 AM
Subject: possible bug in sum() function
select sum(worktime) from timecard where tcacct=project;
The answer came back 182. Then I was asked who had spent time on
the project.
the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We keep a timecard database and I was just asked how much time had been charged to a
particular project code. No problem says I and did the following:
select sum(worktime) from timecard where tcacct=project;
The answer came back 182. Then I was asked who had
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We keep a timecard database and I was just asked how much time had been charged to a
particular project code. No problem says I and did the following:
select sum(worktime) from timecard where tcacct=project;
The answer came back 182. Then I was
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We keep a timecard database and I was just asked how much time had been charged to a
particular project code. No problem says I and did the following:
select sum(worktime) from timecard where tcacct=project;
The answer came back 182. Then I was asked who had
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the query was:
select sum(worktime),user from timecard where tcacct=project group by user;
the answer was:
8.00user1
14.00 user2
160.00 user 3
Now, where I went to school, this adds up to 184!
Suggestions?
Try a different
I'm replying to the list because I got so many of these back:
Ya know gang... some days it just doesn't pay to get outta bed.
Yes, indeed, this is the exact reason my wife doesn't let me do arithmatic :)
Sorry and to the guy who replied with no spam please? what can I say, my face is
Hehehehe.
- Original Message -
From: Geoff Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: possible bug in sum() function
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the query was:
select sum(worktime
Hi!
One more question: does the query work if you remove
the ORDER BY? What does EXPLAIN say then?
Regards, Heikki
-Original Message-
From: Heikki Tuuri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: Possible bug in InnoDB
I would like to note that bug reports should only be sent out if you are
using the latest version, which now is 3.23.39.
--On Friday, June 15, 2001 17:37 -0600 Chris Bolt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
After creating a new database, I ran:
update user set password = 'SomeJunk' where user =
PLEASE read the manual. you need to
set password = password('SomeJunk')
And the bug report form can be obtained by running mysqlbug, the instructions
for which are also found in the manual.
Thank you.
j- k-
On Friday 15 June 2001 13:08, Simon Shapiro wrote:
Could not find a bug
After creating a new database, I ran:
update user set password = 'SomeJunk' where user = 'root';
This inserts the string 'SomeJunk' literally into the database,
unencrypted. This is SQL expected but the result is a database
lockout (not to mention the security breach of having the clear
Hello Simon.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 05:08:18PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could not find a bug report form. So I am telling y'll...
Platform: FreeBSD 4.3 (I do not think it matters)
After creating a new database, I ran:
update user set password = 'SomeJunk' where user = 'root';
FWIW:
It also appears to me that negative one (-1) plus one (1) is ZERO (0)
which may be why you are having trouble...?
in ignorance,
haiku
On Wednesday, April 18, 2001, at 01:09 AM, Milo Stefani wrote:
As Far as I can remember it is explicitly said in the Manual that
inserting
a
As Far as I can remember it is explicitly said in the Manual that inserting
a negative value in an autoincrement field is a Bad Thing
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 6:14 AM
Subject: Possible bug in 3.23.32 or later
58 matches
Mail list logo
