Re: mysql Digest 12 Aug 2015 13:08:20 -0000 Issue 5317
On 2015/08/12 10:49, Bob Eby wrote: converting from MyISAM to innodb would certainly pose problems, I guess the main question would be is MyISAM functionality a strict sub-set of innodb? I'm not sure, but maybe someone else here knows better. No, as already said: for one thing, MyISAM allows more incremented integers in a primary key, more than one. Better find out what functions matter to you. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
Re: table desin question
On 2015/08/12 09:42, Johan De Meersman wrote: - Original Message - >From: "Richard Reina" >Subject: table desin question > >Would this be the best way to design the schema and would it be best to >make the client ID and technician ID the same as the user ID as they relate >to the same person? Close enough; but I think it would be preferrable to use a unique (autoincrement) PK for all three tables; and use a referential key in client and technician to point at user. If there never are more client or technician records for one user, the autoincrementing PK in the user table is enough, with the referential key enough PK for each other table, too. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
Re: mysql Digest 12 Aug 2015 13:08:20 -0000 Issue 5317
Am 12.08.2015 um 16:49 schrieb Bob Eby: converting from MyISAM to innodb would certainly pose problems, I guess the main question would be is MyISAM functionality a strict sub-set of innodb? I'm not sure, but maybe someone else here knows better no it is for sure not signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: mysql Digest 12 Aug 2015 13:08:20 -0000 Issue 5317
converting from MyISAM to innodb would certainly pose problems, I guess the main question would be is MyISAM functionality a strict sub-set of innodb? I'm not sure, but maybe someone else here knows better. Good luck, Robert -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
Re: table desin question
- Original Message - > From: "Richard Reina" > Subject: table desin question > > Would this be the best way to design the schema and would it be best to > make the client ID and technician ID the same as the user ID as they relate > to the same person? Close enough; but I think it would be preferrable to use a unique (autoincrement) PK for all three tables; and use a referential key in client and technician to point at user. -- Unhappiness is discouraged and will be corrected with kitten pictures. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
Re: Changing storage engine in dump file.
it is better to take the dump as it is on the master, restore it on the salve and then change the storage engine through alter table commands that will be the right way of doing and you could see any issues while converting from MyISAM to InnoDB. On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Johan De Meersman wrote: > > - Original Message - > > From: "geetanjali mehra" > > Subject: Changing storage engine in dump file. > > > > Is there any implications in doing so. Is this approach correct? Will I > > face any problem in syncing the slave? > > The first thing that occurs to me, is that the maximum key lenght for > MyISAM is 1000 bytes, but for InnoDB it is only 786 bytes... > > Depending on your server version, InnoDB may not yet have fulltext > indices, and even if it does, the behaviour is different from the MyISAM > ones. > > You are likely to run into a myriad of tiny little differences, and it > seems to me like a fairly bad plan. Why do you want this? > > > -- > Unhappiness is discouraged and will be corrected with kitten pictures. > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > > -- Thanks, Trimurthy P Mobile : +91 97397 64298 http://mysqlinternals.blogspot.in/ https://www.linkedin.com/pub/trimurthy-pothanaboyina/5a/9a9/96b
Re: Changing storage engine in dump file.
Am 12.08.2015 um 15:07 schrieb geetanjali mehra: I am in the process of creating a new slave. On my master, there is a mix of innodb and myisam tables. I want all my tables to be created in innodb on slave. I have planned to change the value of storage engine from innodb to myisam in dump file itself using sed . Running that dump file on the slave will create all my tables with innodb. Is there any implications in doing so. Is this approach correct? Will I face any problem in syncing the slave? if you are asking for trouble do so otherwise replication is designed to be identical how do you imagine that working if there is only a single "alter table" on the master? how do you imagine row-based replication working in such a setup while statement-based replication is unsafe in many cases? sorry, but that sounds just crazy signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
table desin question
I am ceating a database application with two different types of users, clients and technicians. Both types of users have to create and account in which they become "users". From there they can become clients or technicians or perhaps even both. Since each type describe different attributes -- user describes users basic information and login credentials, client describes client information such as billing info and payment method and technician describes technican information such as areas of expertese, experience and qualifications -- would it be best to create three tables and use user ID as the primary key for all? For example: TABLE: user | ID | first_name| last_name| email |phone| password | TABLE client |ID | billing_add | b_city | b_st | b_zip | pmnt_mthd | cc_no| TABLE Techician |ID | type | years_of_exp | current | zone | Would this be the best way to design the schema and would it be best to make the client ID and technician ID the same as the user ID as they relate to the same person?
Re: Changing storage engine in dump file.
- Original Message - > From: "geetanjali mehra" > Subject: Changing storage engine in dump file. > > Is there any implications in doing so. Is this approach correct? Will I > face any problem in syncing the slave? The first thing that occurs to me, is that the maximum key lenght for MyISAM is 1000 bytes, but for InnoDB it is only 786 bytes... Depending on your server version, InnoDB may not yet have fulltext indices, and even if it does, the behaviour is different from the MyISAM ones. You are likely to run into a myriad of tiny little differences, and it seems to me like a fairly bad plan. Why do you want this? -- Unhappiness is discouraged and will be corrected with kitten pictures. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
Changing storage engine in dump file.
Hi, I am in the process of creating a new slave. On my master, there is a mix of innodb and myisam tables. I want all my tables to be created in innodb on slave. I have planned to change the value of storage engine from innodb to myisam in dump file itself using sed . Running that dump file on the slave will create all my tables with innodb. Is there any implications in doing so. Is this approach correct? Will I face any problem in syncing the slave? Thanks in advance.
