Re: Moving database from windoze to Linux
It may be a solution for you...i simply copied the Mysql databases from windows to suse 7.1 and it worked just fine! David. Glyn Davies wrote: Good day,I have created a database using MySQL under Windoze and am trying to move the data to MySQL running on Linux. I have exported the data to a res file - can't see how to do a mysqldump in Windoze. I then try and import the file on the Linux machine using LOAD DATA, but end up with either NULL in all the fields except the primary key field or if I use ENCLOSED BY '', I end up with the data enclosed by quotes.How do I do this properly, please?TIAGlyn Glyn Davies Cirrus-TechVue South Africa Tel: +27 11 783 1508 www.cirrus.co.za __ The information contained in this email is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorised to receive it. Cirrus Techvue is not liable for the proper, complete transmission of the information contained in this email, or any delay in its receipt, and does not warrant that the mail is virus-free. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: use one database or many databases
I've run into a situation where i need to split an enormous database (only say a million rows but oh so long possibly many K) Using JDBC and prepared statements this could be facilitated if we could have the driver implement a setSQL(int x, "--text--") function which could replace a '?' placeholder for the table name in the SQL statement. I can imagine other uses for this too. Unfortunately not a feature in JDBC2.0 or 3.0. Dave. James Blackwell wrote: Yes, but I'm really lazy and changing one connect string is easier than going through 200,000 lines of code and changing table names. ;) That's a good spin on it. Thanks. --James --- From your message of Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:09:30 -0600: Or, you could use one database, and lookup the clients table names, and use a merge table for reports. James Blackwell wrote: I have a similiar situation where I've got a huge database that maintains data for quite a few clients. Queries have gotten extremely sluggish. What I'm working on right now is to have a control database with a single table that contains a unique identifier for each client and a database name. When they log in it figures out the name of the database to use by looking in this table. Each instance of the program only accesses this one database (after finding it in the control) Since all of the programs that make up the suite call the same routine to establish a connection, it is a fairly painless update that I hope will provide substantial performance increases. The only drawback to this is if you need to run a lot of reports across clients. A few administrative reports wouldn't be so bad, but I wouldn't want to like construct a web page on the fly based on a query accessing 50 different data sources. Since this isn't the case here, it shouldn't be a problem. I'm by no means a guru, but this just seems like a logical way to handle the problem. If there is some major logic flaw here, please let me know now! ;) --James [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- From your message of Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:26:21 -0600: If all the data will be used by the same application then I would suggest that you stick with a single database. Cal http://www.calevans.com -Original Message- From: abdelhamid bettache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 8:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: use one database or many databases Hello, I have to design a huge database for all the universities , is it better to consider a database for each university or one for all universities .. If I consider one database so I'll have one table for all students wich contain about 30 rows . thank you __ Get your free domain name and domain-based e-mail from Namezero.com New! Namezero Plus domains now available. Find out more at: http://www.namezero.com - - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: insert delayed and apparent blockage of thread
Dave Hewlett wrote: To... I previously placed this as a comment on a seemingly similar situation. However no one noticed it. As it is a possible bug in mysql i have re-entered it. I had an experience the other day in a controlled test environment that appears to be similar. An advantage is that i know precisely what was taking place. Consider the following: 1) A servlet makes a single 'insert delayed' into a relation. (no auto increment field - and just a simple primary key char(16) ) 2) Shortly afterwards the same servlet attempts to see if the record has been added. 3a) On occasions that it finds it, all continues just fine. 3b) When it is not found the transaction continues normally but the delayed insert NEVER occurs. Furthermore if a further attempt is made to make another insert delayed on the same relation this also never occurs. In the case 3b (which only happens occasionally - not most of the time) i presume the thread handling the inserts has become jammed in some way. Regards, Dave. PS i know i have done something unusual in my program (which i have corrected) nevertheless it should not have had this effect - perhaps an unpredictable effect at worst. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: shutdown and insert delayed
Steven, I had an experience the other day in a controlled test environment that appears to be similar. An advantage is that i know precisely what was taking place. Consider the following: 1) A servlet makes a single 'insert delayed' into a relation. (no auto increment field - and just a simple primary key char(16) ) 2) Shortly afterwards the same servlet attempts to see if the record has been added. 3a) On occasions that it finds it, all continues just fine. 3b) When it is not found the transaction continues normally but the delayed insert NEVER occurs. Furthermore if a further attempt is made to make another insert delayed on the same relation this also never occurs. In the case 3b (which only happens occasionally - not most of the time) i presume the thread handling the inserts has become jammed in some way. Regards, Dave. Steven Roussey wrote: Hi, I was trying to use debugging (creating a trace and log file) in order to find the crashing problem we have been experiencing. However, I tend to come up against another problem in the course of things -- mysql not shutting down. This time I have a log file and a trace file. When I shut down, most of the processes quit, but a few remain (exhibit A). At this point the log stops (no additional info being written)(exhibit B), but the trace continues. Then the trace file stops (exhibit C). Everything is on hold. So I have a trace file, and log file that are not be written to, but still have processes running. What is going on? Sincerely, Steven Roussey Network54.com http://network54.com/?pp=e exhibit A: 11519 pts/2S 0:00 /bin/sh ./bin/safe_mysqld --user=root -O back_log=20 -O table_cache=3500 --log --debug=d,info,query 11567 pts/2S 1:48 /usr/local/mysql/libexec/mysqld --basedir=/usr/local/mysql --datadir=/usr/lo cal/mysql/var --user=ro 11569 pts/2S 0:28 /usr/local/mysql/libexec/mysqld --basedir=/usr/local/mysql --datadir=/usr/lo cal/mysql/var --user=ro 11570 pts/2S 0:01 /usr/local/mysql/libexec/mysqld --basedir=/usr/local/mysql --datadir=/usr/lo cal/mysql/var --user=ro 11597 pts/2S 2:49 /usr/local/mysql/libexec/mysqld --basedir=/usr/local/mysql --datadir=/usr/lo cal/mysql/var --user=ro 5391 pts/2S 0:00 /usr/local/mysql/bin/mysqladmin shutdown 5405 pts/2S 0:00 /usr/local/mysql/libexec/mysqld --basedir=/usr/local/mysql --datadir=/usr/lo cal/mysql/var --user=ro 5546 pts/0R 0:00 ps ax Exhibit B: # tail switch.network54.com.err -n20 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 87779 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `tank.f' (Got timeout reading communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 90741 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `morpheus.f' (Got timeout reading communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 90700 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `mouse.f' (Got timeout reading communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 90714 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `neo.f' (Got timeout reading communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 90722 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `morpheus.f' (Got timeout reading communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 90733 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `morpheus.f' (Got timeout reading communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 90736 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `morpheus.f' (Got timeout reading communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 90729 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `neo.f' (Got timeout reading communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Delayed insert thread couldn't get requested lock for table log_day_20010307 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 72115 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `neo.f' (Got an error writing communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 70096 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `mouse.f' (Got an error writing communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 66934 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `mouse.f' (Got an error writing communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 56536 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `mouse.f' (Got an error writing communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 46514 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `tank.f' (Got an error writing communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 40577 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `tank.f' (Got an error writing communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 45130 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `tank.f' (Got an error writing communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 39806 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `mouse.f' (Got an error writing communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 39819 to db: 'logging' user: 'apache' host: `tank.f' (Got an error writing communication packets) 010307 12:33:41 Aborted connection 39476
Re: Performance of Mysql updation ..
Thiru, Try using DELAYED parameter with your INSERT. - it batches them up more efficiently in another thread. Dave. Thiru wrote: Hello, I am creating a script which works offline from the mainstream of our system and updates our databases. These scripts includes INSERTING, UPDATING and DELETING records. I am performing a updating operation using Python which takes really some time. Something like, update TABLE1 set col1=val1 where col2=something; col2 is indexed. val of something is set inside Python script. This statement is executed atleast 25 times. I beleive for the amt of work it is doing it is really fast, but by any means is there a way to step up the updation speed further?? like changing or adding some config options to my.cnf etc.. Please help. Thiru -o0o "There is no finish line, you can always learn" "You have to keep pressure on yourself, you have to work on your weaknesses". Thiru S/W Engineer, Service Dvlpment Group Infoseek,Japan Voice - (81)-3-5453-2056 http://www.infoseek.co.jp - Click Here http://www.rakuten.co.jp - Click Here http://house.infoseek.co.jp - Click Here http://profile.infoseek.co.jp - Click Here http://chat.infoseek.co.jp - Click Here - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Choice of BLOB or store in a directory
I would much appreciate to hear from experienced mySQL practitioners on the following: I have a large relation in mind (strictly fixed length for performance) with potentially 1-3 million entries. Associated with each of these rows i have a variable number of blobs. I would not consider storing them in the table itself for obvious performance and other reasons but i have choices and i would like all your opinions on them : A) Would you store them in a single relation? B) Because of max table size would you consider one table for each possible kind of blob? C) Consider storing them as files in directories? D) If recommending (A/B) which table type is recommended? In particular has anyone experience on the choice between (B) (C) on performance grounds? e.g. how does directory search compare to an index in mySQL? Regards, Dave. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
