Partial replicate InnoDB - MyISAM
This thread started as Re: MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.16 is released + sneak peek of 4.1.1. I may want to have one MySQL server as the Read only Search server. If I did this and I have all InnoDB table on my Master, then could I replicate only certain columns into the MyISAM slave ? Any other efficient ideas on how to do this? thanks, Jon - Original Message - From: Chris Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jon Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 8:45 PM Subject: Re: MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.16 is released + sneak peek of 4.1.1 Hi, As I have said before, I'm not Heikki, but I'm such a massive geek I'm likely to have one or two useful bits of info for you. :-) 1. You'd have a rough time getting indexes and tables to be seperated out, unless you were willing to set up your various symlinks/hardlinks by hand. Even then, you may be inviting problems. Additionally, no date has been announced for FULLTEXT indexing on InnoDB tables, and Heikki considers it a low priority by the looks of things (not having a go at the god of multiversioned DBs, just making a possibly incorrect observation). 2. I personally use ReiserFS for all of my stuff, most of which is based upon InnoDB. One thing you have to remember is that InnoDB treats the space inside the tablespace as a Berkeley Fast Filesystem-style space, using the underlaying filesystem minimally. To quote the manuals, raw partition usage can speed up IO on a number of UNIXes (and Windows too seemingly). Regarding backup, you'd need to use mysqldump or InnoDB Hot Backup to backup a raw-partition setup. This isn't a bad thing though - I use mysqldump and can get a consistant snapshot of a 12 GB DB without problems while the thing is running. Hope this helps! Regards, Chris Jon Hancock wrote: Heikki, I have two questions in regards to the tablespace changes: 1 - You mention being able to store indexes in a seperate tablespace. How far off is this for MySQL to implement? I would like to see FULLTEXT indexes stored in seperate tablspace (seperate RAID channel) so the two features (InnoDB FULLTEXT) would both need to be available. 2 - Is there any value to using Journaled file systems with the InnoDB tablespaces? A new system I'm putting together will have seperate drives for only InnoDB data. Is a Journaled file system extra overhead? If so, is Raw significantly more efficient? How does this choice effect backup soultion? thanks, Jon - Original Message - From: Heikki Tuuri [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:55 PM Subject: Re: MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.16 is released + sneak peek of 4.1.1 Eduardo, to make the user interface simple, I decided to take the table per file approach. Each .ibd file is internally a 'tablespace'. The simple approach I chose is similar to how MyISAM now works. I thought it would be nice for current MySQL users. In Oracle, one can store several tables into a single named tablespace, and can also split indexes and data of a single table to separate tablespaces. Nothing prevents adding those features to InnoDB, too. It just requires new syntax in CREATE TABLE to specify these options. Best regards, Heikki Innobase Oy http://www.innodb.com InnoDB - transactions, row level locking, and foreign keys for MySQL InnoDB Hot Backup - hot backup tool for InnoDB which also backs up MyISAM tables .. From: Eduardo D Piovesam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Subject: Re: MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.16 is released + sneak peek of 4.1.1 View this article only Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc Date: 2003-10-23 14:43:28 PST (Sorry for the last email, it's not complete). Hello Heikki, Sorry, but I didn't understand the concept of tablespace applied. It's different from Oracle, right? AFAIK, tablespace is utilized to logically group tables into one (or more) files. And to group indexes into another files... But you said that the each table (with its indexes) will be in one file... is there an reason? Is it better than split tables and indexes? Thank you. Eduardo -- 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] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Partial replicate InnoDB - MyISAM
Hmm How much lag time can you afford between the master's contents being updated and the slave being updated? Taking advantage of MyISAM's compressed table features might help performance if that is an issue. Every independant test out there shows that in the cases where InnoDB is slower for reads than MyISAM, the speed differential is quite small. In those cases, the differences come from InnoDB's higher disk space and RAM usage seemingly. Just some of my thoughts. Regards, Chris On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:40 pm, Jon Hancock wrote: This thread started as Re: MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.16 is released + sneak peek of 4.1.1. I may want to have one MySQL server as the Read only Search server. If I did this and I have all InnoDB table on my Master, then could I replicate only certain columns into the MyISAM slave ? Any other efficient ideas on how to do this? thanks, Jon - Original Message - From: Chris Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jon Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 8:45 PM Subject: Re: MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.16 is released + sneak peek of 4.1.1 Hi, As I have said before, I'm not Heikki, but I'm such a massive geek I'm likely to have one or two useful bits of info for you. :-) 1. You'd have a rough time getting indexes and tables to be seperated out, unless you were willing to set up your various symlinks/hardlinks by hand. Even then, you may be inviting problems. Additionally, no date has been announced for FULLTEXT indexing on InnoDB tables, and Heikki considers it a low priority by the looks of things (not having a go at the god of multiversioned DBs, just making a possibly incorrect observation). 2. I personally use ReiserFS for all of my stuff, most of which is based upon InnoDB. One thing you have to remember is that InnoDB treats the space inside the tablespace as a Berkeley Fast Filesystem-style space, using the underlaying filesystem minimally. To quote the manuals, raw partition usage can speed up IO on a number of UNIXes (and Windows too seemingly). Regarding backup, you'd need to use mysqldump or InnoDB Hot Backup to backup a raw-partition setup. This isn't a bad thing though - I use mysqldump and can get a consistant snapshot of a 12 GB DB without problems while the thing is running. Hope this helps! Regards, Chris Jon Hancock wrote: Heikki, I have two questions in regards to the tablespace changes: 1 - You mention being able to store indexes in a seperate tablespace. How far off is this for MySQL to implement? I would like to see FULLTEXT indexes stored in seperate tablspace (seperate RAID channel) so the two features (InnoDB FULLTEXT) would both need to be available. 2 - Is there any value to using Journaled file systems with the InnoDB tablespaces? A new system I'm putting together will have seperate drives for only InnoDB data. Is a Journaled file system extra overhead? If so, is Raw significantly more efficient? How does this choice effect backup soultion? thanks, Jon - Original Message - From: Heikki Tuuri [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:55 PM Subject: Re: MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.16 is released + sneak peek of 4.1.1 Eduardo, to make the user interface simple, I decided to take the table per file approach. Each .ibd file is internally a 'tablespace'. The simple approach I chose is similar to how MyISAM now works. I thought it would be nice for current MySQL users. In Oracle, one can store several tables into a single named tablespace, and can also split indexes and data of a single table to separate tablespaces. Nothing prevents adding those features to InnoDB, too. It just requires new syntax in CREATE TABLE to specify these options. Best regards, Heikki Innobase Oy http://www.innodb.com InnoDB - transactions, row level locking, and foreign keys for MySQL InnoDB Hot Backup - hot backup tool for InnoDB which also backs up MyISAM tables .. From: Eduardo D Piovesam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Subject: Re: MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.16 is released + sneak peek of 4.1.1 View this article only Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc Date: 2003-10-23 14:43:28 PST (Sorry for the last email, it's not complete). Hello Heikki, Sorry, but I didn't understand the concept of tablespace applied. It's different from Oracle, right? AFAIK, tablespace is utilized to logically group tables into one (or more) files. And to group indexes into another files... But you said that the each table (with its indexes) will be in one file... is there an reason? Is it better than split tables and indexes? Thank you. Eduardo -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
Re: Partial replicate InnoDB - MyISAM
see below... - Original Message - From: Chris Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jon Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 10:49 AM Subject: Re: Partial replicate InnoDB - MyISAM Hmm How much lag time can you afford between the master's contents being updated and the slave being updated? Taking advantage of MyISAM's compressed table features might help performance if that is an issue. I need to put copy things into MyISAM from InnoDB anyway in order to use FULLTEXT. Right now, we are doing double inserts into InnoDB and then an insert into MyISAM (only the searchable fields). O would like to solve this at the DB level. Can I use FULLTEXT on compressed tables? Should there be any speed degragation other than the normal compress overhead? Every independant test out there shows that in the cases where InnoDB is slower for reads than MyISAM, the speed differential is quite small. In those cases, the differences come from InnoDB's higher disk space and RAM usage seemingly. Just some of my thoughts. Regards, Chris On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:40 pm, Jon Hancock wrote: This thread started as Re: MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.16 is released + sneak peek of 4.1.1. I may want to have one MySQL server as the Read only Search server. If I did this and I have all InnoDB table on my Master, then could I replicate only certain columns into the MyISAM slave ? Any other efficient ideas on how to do this? thanks, Jon - Original Message - From: Chris Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jon Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 8:45 PM Subject: Re: MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.16 is released + sneak peek of 4.1.1 Hi, As I have said before, I'm not Heikki, but I'm such a massive geek I'm likely to have one or two useful bits of info for you. :-) 1. You'd have a rough time getting indexes and tables to be seperated out, unless you were willing to set up your various symlinks/hardlinks by hand. Even then, you may be inviting problems. Additionally, no date has been announced for FULLTEXT indexing on InnoDB tables, and Heikki considers it a low priority by the looks of things (not having a go at the god of multiversioned DBs, just making a possibly incorrect observation). 2. I personally use ReiserFS for all of my stuff, most of which is based upon InnoDB. One thing you have to remember is that InnoDB treats the space inside the tablespace as a Berkeley Fast Filesystem-style space, using the underlaying filesystem minimally. To quote the manuals, raw partition usage can speed up IO on a number of UNIXes (and Windows too seemingly). Regarding backup, you'd need to use mysqldump or InnoDB Hot Backup to backup a raw-partition setup. This isn't a bad thing though - I use mysqldump and can get a consistant snapshot of a 12 GB DB without problems while the thing is running. Hope this helps! Regards, Chris Jon Hancock wrote: Heikki, I have two questions in regards to the tablespace changes: 1 - You mention being able to store indexes in a seperate tablespace. How far off is this for MySQL to implement? I would like to see FULLTEXT indexes stored in seperate tablspace (seperate RAID channel) so the two features (InnoDB FULLTEXT) would both need to be available. 2 - Is there any value to using Journaled file systems with the InnoDB tablespaces? A new system I'm putting together will have seperate drives for only InnoDB data. Is a Journaled file system extra overhead? If so, is Raw significantly more efficient? How does this choice effect backup soultion? thanks, Jon - Original Message - From: Heikki Tuuri [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:55 PM Subject: Re: MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.16 is released + sneak peek of 4.1.1 Eduardo, to make the user interface simple, I decided to take the table per file approach. Each .ibd file is internally a 'tablespace'. The simple approach I chose is similar to how MyISAM now works. I thought it would be nice for current MySQL users. In Oracle, one can store several tables into a single named tablespace, and can also split indexes and data of a single table to separate tablespaces. Nothing prevents adding those features to InnoDB, too. It just requires new syntax in CREATE TABLE to specify these options. Best regards, Heikki Innobase Oy http://www.innodb.com InnoDB - transactions, row level locking, and foreign keys for MySQL InnoDB Hot Backup - hot backup tool for InnoDB which also backs up MyISAM tables .. From: Eduardo D Piovesam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Subject: Re: MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.16 is released
