Hi
From the analysis of other sources,
The error may be due to:
1. MediaWiki was updated from an older version without updating the database.
so to update the database, you can use either the maintenance script
maintenance/update.php via the command line, or the web installer (rename
Hello ViSolve DB Team,
thank you for response. I guess I didn't write clearly enough what
information I need: general usage of prepared statements I already know.
The question right now is, if I get a result set containing several
rows, must I fetch *all* of them, if I don't use client side
mysqldump --user root --password=password horsewiki horsewiki.sql
Dan Buettner wrote:
Hmmm, sounds like something's pretty abnormal here. Any idea what may
have been done here?
I wonder if you could step around this with a call to mysqldump that
doesn't explicitly lock tables ... what is
I tried this first to no avail.
mysqldump --user root --password=password --skip-lock-tables horsewiki
horsewiki.sql
mysqldump: mysqldump: Couldn't execute 'show create table `archive`':
Table 'horsewiki.archive' doesn't exist (1146)
I'll try the update next.
Visolve DB Team wrote:
Hi
I've looked over as much of the information on the new Community vs.
Enterprise version stuff as I can find, and I don't see an answer to
this question. Basically, I want to know if the MySQL C API is still
dual licensed, under the GPL and the MySQL commercial license. If so, I
don't see how
Hi,
I want to decode base 64 string via mysql .
Also i am using aspx .net .
Pl. help me.
Urgent reply will be appreciated
--
Regards,
Abhishek jain
Hi,
Yes that solved the problem and was fast.
I would like to know now that is there anyother way for the same in earlier
versions of mysql.
Thanks again,
--
Regards,
Abhishek jain
On 10/17/06, Ady Wicaksono [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
For the Radius server we're using MySQL cluster and the following query
looks too slow:
select ip from ipaddr
where pool='INTERNET' and stype='S' and ls_id=3 and allocated is null
limit 1;
Table ipaddr is small (~6MB, 38000 records). Fields in WHERE clause have
few values and
I wonder if this is a permissions problem.
Regards,
Jerry Schwartz
Global Information Incorporated
195 Farmington Ave.
Farmington, CT 06032
860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341
-Original Message-
From: mdpeters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 9:19 PM
To: Dan
Mindaugas, can you post the output of
SHOW CREATE TABLE ipaddr;
and
EXPLAIN select ip from ipaddr
where pool='INTERNET' and stype='S' and ls_id=3 and allocated is null
limit 1;
When you say it's too slow, how slow is it? And how fast when it is a
memory table?
Also, which specific version
You should strongly consider adding an index on the fields you're
querying against. Right now, none of the fields in your query are
indexed in the table.
I would try something like this for starters: a multi-column index
against all the fields in the query you showed. If you have other
queries
I have a replication setup with two servers. How can I remove one of
the replicated databases from replication so it's available on only
one server? All DBs are replicated and there are no replicate-do-db
options set. I've tried setting replicaten-do-db for all DBs except
the one I want to
At 08:34 AM 10/17/2006, you wrote:
Hello,
For the Radius server we're using MySQL cluster and the following query
looks too slow:
select ip from ipaddr
where pool='INTERNET' and stype='S' and ls_id=3 and allocated is null
limit 1;
Table ipaddr is small (~6MB, 38000 records). Fields in
I execute using root permissions. I successfully upgraded mediawiki to
the latest mediawiki-1.8.2 version for grins. I ran php -cli
./maintenance/update.php without trouble.
Jerry Schwartz wrote:
I wonder if this is a permissions problem.
Regards,
Jerry Schwartz
Global Information
I have some long VARCHAR fields that a user will sometimes sort on. Does
a prefix index in any way help with sorting or just for lookups? Will it
speed up a filesort? I couldn't find this information in How MySQL uses
indices.
R.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives:
I would think that with so few possible values for all but the ip field,
indexing the other fields would accomplish nothing. In fact, I'd be
surprised if the optimizer didn't realize that and do a sequential read
anyways.
Regards,
Jerry Schwartz
Global Information Incorporated
195 Farmington
I agree that individual fields have relatively few possible values -
hopefully, when those are combined in a multi-column index, he will
have a greater number of unique combinations, gaining more out of the
index. That's why I suggested putting stype and Is_id as the first
two fields in the
Hi,
MySQL is looking for an authoritative, official statement
which states all the current Hungarian collation rules.
Please let other MySQL-using Hungarians (especially if you
know a user group in Hungary) know about these
questions. Best of all would be a translation of the
Hungarian government
Btw, this is using the InnoDB engine.
-Original Message-
From: Robert DiFalco
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:26 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: References on Optimizing File Sort
I have an unavoidable filesort in a very large query. Can someone point
me to references for
I didn't think of that (combinations). You are probably right. Due to my
background, I tend not to think a lot about multi-column indices.
I would think that you want field with the most possible values first, then
the next, etc. Is that what you were thinking?
Regards,
Jerry Schwartz
Global
Would it not be best to have the field with the fewest repeats (i.e., the
closest to unique) first, or is that what you meant.
Bill
On Tue, October 17, 2006 10:12, Jerry Schwartz said:
I didn't think of that (combinations). You are probably right. Due to my
background, I tend not to think a lot
Yes, it'd be best to have the values with highest cardinality / most
uniqueness first.
On 10/17/06, William R. Mussatto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it not be best to have the field with the fewest repeats (i.e., the
closest to unique) first, or is that what you meant.
Bill
On Tue, October
That's what Dan (and I) meant.
Regards,
Jerry Schwartz
Global Information Incorporated
195 Farmington Ave.
Farmington, CT 06032
860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341
-Original Message-
From: William R. Mussatto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:28 PM
To:
Hi!
Try:
set engine_condition_pushdown = on;
explain select ip from ipaddr
where pool='INTERNET' and stype='S' and ls_id=3 and allocated is null
limit 1;
to see if you can push the predicates to improve performance.
BR
-- Martin
Mindaugas wrote:
Hello,
For the Radius server we're using
Warren,
As part of today's Press Release on MySQL Enterprise, there's no change
in the client side licensing. However, as part of the MySQL Winter of
Code and the Connector contest, we have something in store which we will
be sharing with you next week.
As for free-of-charge, the need to
Hello,
Lets suppose I have a table like this one
id id_1 id_2 date_time
1 101 1000 2006-07-04 11:25:43
2 102 1001 2006-07-04 11:26:43
3 101 1005 2006-07-04 11:27:43
4 103 1000 2006-07-04 11:25:43
I want to find all id_2 that has same id_1 and time difference in
records is no more than 5 minutes
Hi Peter -
Something like this ought to work:
SELECT t1.id_2 FROM mytable t1, mytable t2
WHERE t1.id_1 = t2.id_1
AND t1.id != t2.id
AND ABS( UNIX_TIMESTAMP(t1.date_time) - UNIX_TIMESTAMP(t2.date_time) ) = 300
Dan
On 10/17/06, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Lets suppose I have a table
I want to find all id_2 that has same id_1 and time difference in
records is no more than 5 minutes ...
How about ...
SELECT id_2
FROM tbl AS t1 JOIN tbl AS t2 ON t1.id_2 = t2.id_1
WHERE ABS(SEC_TO_TIME(t1.date_time)-SEC_TO_TIME(t2.date_time))=300;
PB
-
Peter wrote:
Hello,
Lets
Dan's is correct because
the clause 'AND t1.id != t2.id'
prevents checking a row against itself
since the time diff with a row against
itself is zero, which is less than 300
- Original Message -
From: Dan Buettner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Hello, I would really appreciate your help regarding a query. First,
some background:
The query is being executed on the following table:
mysql describe locBridgeImageLocLevel5;
+---+--+--+-+-++
| Field
I have an unavoidable filesort in a very large query. Can someone point
me to references for optimizing filesort? I'm assuming this is going to
be changes to my.ini or the hardware.
TIA,
R.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:
Erick, maybe I'm missing something or you mistyped, but you appear to
be saying this:
you want 2356 and not 13128
but your last SQL query is excluding only 18302. 13128 is not
mentioned in the query.
Try re-running the query with 13128 instead of 18302 ?
Dan
On 10/17/06, Erick Carballo
Rolando Edwards wrote:
Dan's is correct because
Thank you ALL for your kind help !!!
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL
Robert, off the top of my head, you'll probably want to make the
sort_buffer_size as large as you can, keeping in mind that this memory
setting is allocated per thread. In other words, if you have up to 32
threads, and you allocate 100 MB to this setting, you could eat up
3200 MB this way if
Dan, thanks for your prompt response. You are correct: I mistyped.
However, if I ran the query as you suggest, I obtain the same results:
mysql SELECT distinct loc1.imageId
- FROM locBridgeImageLocLevel5 as loc1
- INNER JOIN
- locBridgeImageLocLevel5 as loc2 USING (imageId)
On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 09:26 -0700, Robert DiFalco wrote:
I have an unavoidable filesort in a very large query. Can someone point
me to references for optimizing filesort? I'm assuming this is going to
be changes to my.ini or the hardware.
Well, one method to *eliminate* Using filesort is to
I see what's happening, Erick.
It's matching all the rows in loc1 and loc2 with the same image id.
It *is* excluding 13128, but image id 1 is still appearing because of
the rows where they match *besides* 13128. For example, 18302 and
actually also 2356 since you're joining a table on itself.
Hi Guys,
Need some pointers. I've got a MySQL server (5.0.22) which is basically
pulling data from SQL Server into a file and then I'm using mysqlimport
to load the data into the DB.
The updates are being generated like every 2 to 5 seconds.
Due to this, my Binary Log files are huge! (and many)
Just curious to know,
I tried to update a table with ~1.7 million rows (~1G in size) and the
update took close to 15-20 minutes before it says it's done.
Is this kind of speed expected?
I don't really understand how the alter table add column is done, but
when I look at the show processlist I
Hello,
I'm running f.a.m.p, f =freebsd 4.7 and mysql is 3.23.52.
Anyway, I inherited a website from someone else's server(I don't know
what they we're running) but the admin section of the website generates
this error iin the apache error log when trying to login( on the screen
just takes
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 09:29 +0800, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
Just curious to know,
I tried to update a table with ~1.7 million rows (~1G in size) and the
update took close to 15-20 minutes before it says it's done.
Is this kind of speed expected?
I don't really understand how the alter table
41 matches
Mail list logo
