Re: about mysqld

2005-12-01 Thread Matt Monaco
I am having similar issues.  I moved a copy of mysqld_safe to init.d and 
removed the old startup script, this had the effect of lowering the number 
of processes from about 30 something to 7 or 8.  However mysqld_safe now 
appears as  a subprocess of rc and under mysqld_safe is mysqld and under 
that are the 7 or 8.

I know that in some situations there should be a few process however on an 
exact replica of this machine only mysqld_safe with a single subproccess is 
running.


Bing Du [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,

Usually, 'ps -ef|grep mysqld' shows:

root   1932   1  ...
mysql  1962   1932 ...
mysql  1963   1932 ...
mysql  1964   1932 ...
...

But today I noticed it's like this:

root   1932   1  
mysql  1962   1932 ...
mysql  1963   1962 ...
mysql  1964   1963 ...
mysql  1965   1963 ...
mysql  1966   1963 ...
...

So what might have caused 1-1932-1962-1963-1964?  Also there are 10
mysqld running.  Does that mean there are that many connections
established?

Would anyboby shed some light or provide pointers?  Thanks much in advance.

Bing 



-- 
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Windows - logging into MySQL

2005-11-30 Thread Matt Monaco
Well stupid questions are usually responded to with simple answers like 
rtfm.  You'd think you'd be able to at least be able to install a version of 
the daemon that's still supported before you get into advanced topics like 
mysql -h


Beauford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 This is why lists like this get a bad name. First off, these instructions
 are for 4.1. Secondly. What makes you think I haven't read the 
 instructions
 or searched extensively on Google etc. Either give a proper answer or just
 shut your mouth. Never mind anyone responding, I'll find my own damn
 answers. Thanks for the help.



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: November 30, 2005 12:16 AM
 To: Beauford
 Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
 Subject: Re: Windows - logging into MySQL



 Beauford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/29/2005 11:31:24 PM:

 I just installed MySQL 3.23 (the only one I could get to work) and I
 find that I can log into the server just by typing mysql at the DOS
 prompt. Ho do make it so you have to use a user name and password to get
 in.

 Thanks

 Running on Win2k Advance Server.




 You could try following the installation instructions in the manual
 http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/4.1/en/windows-installation.html

 Shawn Green
 Database Administrator
 Unimin Corporation - Spruce Pine


 



-- 
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: comma-separated JOINS

2005-11-29 Thread Matt Monaco
I just wanted to thank you for such a thorough response, it has helped me a 
lot as I've always ignored the existence of joins.

Thanks,
Matt


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 The sequence you use to JOIN a set of tables is sometimes determined
 completely by the logic of the JOIN. You should perform all of your CROSS
 JOINs and INNER JOINs first (a comma is equivalent to a CROSS JOIN but
 starting with 5.0.12 the comma has a LOWER evaluation priority than an
 explicit JOIN so watch out!!) then list your LEFT or RIGHT JOINs. It is
 very difficult to have both LEFT and RIGHT joins in the same query and get
 a correct result. You can nearly always transform a query containing both
 LEFT JOIN and a RIGHT JOIN into a query using a CROSS JOIN and a LEFT
 JOIN.

 When given the opportunity in a query where several equivalent
 constructions are available (as in a query that uses nothing but INNER
 JOINs) I try to list the smallest table first. It may not have the least
 number of physical records but should have the fewest number of rows
 returned. JOINs are geometrically expensive operations and the fewer rows
 you need to evaluate between stages of your JOINs, the more likely you are
 to have better performance.

 Try to keep the columns that are references to or are referenced by other
 tables indexed. The MySQL query engine (at least until 5.0) will use just
 one index per table per query.

 Which tables the columns come from in your results does not matter so long
 as you construct your table reference correctly.

 Above all else, I strongly discourage the use of comma-joins. The explicit
 JOIN syntax is not only less ambiguous but is the only way to declare an
 outer JOIN with MySQL. When you use the explicit JOIN syntax, you are also
 less likely to form unintentional Cartesian products which can absolutely
 clobber a query's performance.

 Shawn Green
 Database Administrator
 Unimin Corporation - Spruce Pine

 Matt Monaco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/29/2005 12:22:45 AM:

 What would be the most efficient order to join in?  Say I have one main
 table with most columns (I assume this should be the main table of the
 query) then each table relates to the next, is it as simple as putting
 them
 in order?



 Peter Brawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
 news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Matt,
 
  When using JOINS by the simply supplying a comma separated list of
  tables in
  the FROM clause, is the ON argument normally associated with a join
  intended
  to be addressed in the WHERE clause, or should ON still be used?
 
  There's no ON clause for a join specified by a WHERE clause, and
 that's
  one reason specifiying joins with JOIN ... ON ..  is almost always
  preferable--it entirely disambiguates the join for the writer,
 readers,
  and those others who later will have to divine what you meant :-) .
 
  PB
 
  -
 
  Matt Monaco wrote:
 
 When using JOINS by the simply supplying a comma separated list of
 tables
 in
 the FROM clause, is the ON argument normally associated with a join
 intended
 to be addressed in the WHERE clause, or should ON still be used?
 
 // Comma separated join
 SELECT u.*, a.city FROM users u, addresses a WHERE u.id=a.user_id;
 
 // Actual JOIN clause
 SELECT u.*, a.city FROM users u INNER JOIN addresses a ON
 u.id=a.user_id;
 
 
 // Query style in question
 SELECT u.*, a.city FROM users u, addresses a ON u.id=a.user_id;
 
 If not ON, is there at least another viable argument?  The reason I'm
 interested is for a query involving 5 or 6 tables and WHERE arguments
 which
 do not deal with the relationships.  I would like to assure the
 efficiency
 of this query.
 
 
 Thanks in advance,
 Matt
 
 
 
 
 
  -- 
  No virus found in this outgoing message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/184 - Release Date:
 11/27/2005
 



 -- 
 MySQL General Mailing List
 For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
 To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 



-- 
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]



comma-separated JOINS

2005-11-28 Thread Matt Monaco
When using JOINS by the simply supplying a comma separated list of tables in
the FROM clause, is the ON argument normally associated with a join intended
to be addressed in the WHERE clause, or should ON still be used?

// Comma separated join
SELECT u.*, a.city FROM users u, addresses a WHERE u.id=a.user_id;

// Actual JOIN clause
SELECT u.*, a.city FROM users u INNER JOIN addresses a ON u.id=a.user_id;


// Query style in question
SELECT u.*, a.city FROM users u, addresses a ON u.id=a.user_id;

If not ON, is there at least another viable argument?  The reason I'm
interested is for a query involving 5 or 6 tables and WHERE arguments which
do not deal with the relationships.  I would like to assure the efficiency
of this query.


Thanks in advance,
Matt 



-- 
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Why are posts to this list showing up in my inbox?

2005-11-28 Thread Matt Monaco
I am using outlook express to view this mailing list, I do not need the 
posts actually mailed to my account, how can I address this?

Thanks in advance,
Matt 



-- 
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Why are posts to this list showing up in my inbox?

2005-11-28 Thread Matt Monaco
Ahh, I thought I needed to subscribe just to have access to post like the 
php mailing lists.  Didn't realized that was just for emailed copies. 
Thanks.


Logan, David (SST - Adelaide) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Click the help menu? They show up in your inbox because you subscribed
to the list. Perhaps the forums (http://forums.mysql.com) may be a
better place for you to check out.

Regards


David Logan
Database Administrator
HP Managed Services
148 Frome Street,
Adelaide 5000
Australia

+61 8 8408 4273 - Work
+61 417 268 665 - Mobile
+61 8 8408 4259 - Fax


-Original Message-
From: Matt Monaco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 1:40 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Why are posts to this list showing up in my inbox?

I am using outlook express to view this mailing list, I do not need the
posts actually mailed to my account, how can I address this?

Thanks in advance,
Matt



-- 
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-- 
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: comma-separated JOINS

2005-11-28 Thread Matt Monaco
What would be the most efficient order to join in?  Say I have one main 
table with most columns (I assume this should be the main table of the 
query) then each table relates to the next, is it as simple as putting them 
in order?



Peter Brawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Matt,

 When using JOINS by the simply supplying a comma separated list of
 tables in
 the FROM clause, is the ON argument normally associated with a join
 intended
 to be addressed in the WHERE clause, or should ON still be used?

 There's no ON clause for a join specified by a WHERE clause, and that's 
 one reason specifiying joins with JOIN ... ON ..  is almost always 
 preferable--it entirely disambiguates the join for the writer, readers, 
 and those others who later will have to divine what you meant :-) .

 PB

 -

 Matt Monaco wrote:

When using JOINS by the simply supplying a comma separated list of tables 
in
the FROM clause, is the ON argument normally associated with a join 
intended
to be addressed in the WHERE clause, or should ON still be used?

// Comma separated join
SELECT u.*, a.city FROM users u, addresses a WHERE u.id=a.user_id;

// Actual JOIN clause
SELECT u.*, a.city FROM users u INNER JOIN addresses a ON u.id=a.user_id;


// Query style in question
SELECT u.*, a.city FROM users u, addresses a ON u.id=a.user_id;

If not ON, is there at least another viable argument?  The reason I'm
interested is for a query involving 5 or 6 tables and WHERE arguments 
which
do not deal with the relationships.  I would like to assure the efficiency
of this query.


Thanks in advance,
Matt





 -- 
 No virus found in this outgoing message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/184 - Release Date: 11/27/2005
 



-- 
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]