Hi All,
We have database of around 100GB, and planning to take dump using mysqldump.
Can you please let how much time it would take for 100GB.
We have 8GB RAM and 4 intel latest processor. The mysql db is running on
linux.
regards
anandkl
Have you considered replicating to a backup server and then dumping from
it?
No matter your processors with a 100gb db it is going to take a
significant amount of time.
Keith
Ananda Kumar wrote:
Hi All,
We have database of around 100GB, and planning to take dump using
mysqldump.
Can you
Hi Keith,
I will be doing this from my slave database.
Any rough estimate of time for 100gb mysqldump.
regards
anandkl
On 5/24/07, B. Keith Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you considered replicating to a backup server and then dumping from
it?
No matter your processors with a 100gb db
Wm Mussatto wrote:
Assuming you are using MYISAM table types, each table requires at least
three files on the disk. If they are in one database they will all be in
one directory (how fast is your OS at finding the files in its directory
structure?).
Are they going to be opened at the same time
Hi,
I have tried to select data from more tables using union, but it gaves the
following error:
ERROR 1267 (HY000): Illegal mix of collations (utf8_general_ci,IMPLICIT) and
(latin1_swedish_ci,COERCIBLE) for operation 'UNION'
I have verified the tables (using show create table table_name)
Just for the logs:
Finally I found the failure. It was the Raid-Controller (3ware).
It seems that the 64-bit Kernel has troubles with this Device.
I tried different mainboards with different controllers and the failure
was reproducable with a 3ware-8000. I tried two of them.
Cheers,
Christoph
Hi to all,
I have a strange error on using of timestamp data type.
See the follow table definition and insert command.
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS Storicocorrenti;
CREATE TABLE Storicocorrenti (
ID_LINEA mediumint(6) unsigned zerofill NOT NULL default '00',
DATAORA timestamp NOT NULL default
Hello Allesandro,
Alessandro Agostini wrote:
Hi to all,
I have a strange error on using of timestamp data type.
See the follow table definition and insert command.
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS Storicocorrenti;
CREATE TABLE Storicocorrenti (
ID_LINEA mediumint(6) unsigned zerofill NOT NULL default
Hi Alessandro, all !
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hello Allesandro,
Alessandro Agostini wrote:
[[...]]
Watching the table content, I see second record as:
032100, '2005-03-27 03:00:00', 0, '40.00', '0.000', '0.000', 0,
'0.00'
MySql change the time information of DATAORA field from 02:00:00
Maybe, it has to do with the TIMESTAMP behavior: whenever you insert a
TIMESTAMP value MySQL converts it to UTC and converts it back to local time (or
the time you entered).
To prevent this behavior you can
- change TIMESTAMP into DATETIME or
- disable it by adding this setting to the MY.INI
I'm working in a project at the moment that is using MySQL, and people keep
making assertions like this one:
*Really* big sites don't ever have referential integrity. Or if the few spots
they do (like with financial transactions) it's implemented on the application
level (via, say, optimistic
tbt
the number of levels in this table is unknown and the query should work
for any number of levels
please provide a sample 'select' query in mysql
That's a graph, which is recursive, so you need an sproc. See edge list
sprocs at
I have just realised why my statistics package is throwing up anomolies
for my data set.
Whenever I auto increment a counter field, if its the first time it is
set to 0 as opposed to 1, this is im sure due to my creating of the
table and assigning the field values initial value to be null...
The definitive answer to anything that requires trees in SQL is nested
sets. I have written a tutorial on the subject, as this is about the
most asked question in DB relational data modeling.
http://www.mrnaz.com/static/articles/trees_in_sql_tutorial/
Enjoy :)
- Naz.
Peter Brawley wrote:
tbt
Naz,
*Really* big sites don't ever have referential integrity. Or if the
few spots
they do (like with financial transactions) it's implemented on the
application
level (via, say, optimistic locking), never the database level.
Mebbe that view was common in the MySQL community in the time of
Naz writes
The definitive answer to anything that
requires trees in SQL is nested sets.
They are not definitive when the tree is large and must be updated
frequently.
PB
-
Naz Gassiep wrote:
The definitive answer to anything that requires trees in SQL is nested
sets. I have written a
Really? The ability to manipulate trees with single queries was what
made them so scalable in my mind. What is the better way to handle large
frequently updated trees? This is the best method I know, I'd love to
learn of a better one.
- Naz.
Peter Brawley wrote:
Naz writes
The definitive
Naz,
The ability to manipulate trees with single queries
was what made them so scalable in my mind. What is
the better way to handle large frequently updated trees?
This is the best method I know, I'd love to
learn of a better one.
For large frequently updated trees DAGs I prefer edge lists,
I'm working in a project at the moment that is using MySQL, and people
keep making assertions like this one:
*Really* big sites don't ever have referential integrity. Or if the few
spots they do (like with financial transactions) it's implemented on the
application level (via, say, optimistic
On Thu, May 24, 2007 2:12, Przemys?aw Klein said:
Wm Mussatto wrote:
Assuming you are using MYISAM table types, each table requires at least
three files on the disk. If they are in one database they will all be
in
one directory (how fast is your OS at finding the files in its directory
Hello MySQL community,
I have a table that contains a foreign key, e.g.
ID - Local unique key
UserID - Foreign key
Data
Is it possible to do a JOIN on the Users table to replace UserID with
the name of the user,
as in the Name column of the Users table?
I've tried several JOINS, but I JOIN the
I think I'm discovering that sub-selects in MySQL are broken. Is that
true? It seems like you cannot have a sub-select without doing a table
scan -- even for a constant IN expression -- this because it gets
re-written as an EXISTS that executes for each row.
Is that true? Forcing an index
Naz,
Without going into detail about various projects I've seen, surfice it to
say that I have wittnessed some true horrors. In defence however, the
largest abomination I have ever witnessed was from an MS shop that had grown
a database from a MS Access system upward and had then, bluntly
Ok, so I guess it is more complicated than that.
This query which has 5M records that match its criteria returns
instantly:
SELECT ELEMS.id
FROM ELEMS
WHERE ((
ELEMS.nodeID IN (
SELECT link.childID
FROM link
JOIN path ON
Whoa!? I was just reading this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySQL), and
noticed a few things...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_key Foreign key support for all
storage engines will likely be released with MySQL 5.2
(although it has been present since version 3.23.44 for
Since the question was about *really* big websites, the answer is both
yes and no.
Yes, they do turn off RI on the database side, simply because it's not
possible to enforce RI on a database system where data is partitioned
across server farms (or shards) both vertically and horizontally. And
I can give you a rough estimate:
My /data partition is 67G. The gzipped output of mysqldump is 20G. It
takes about 53 minutes. Extrapolating to 100G would give (50% more) about
78 minutes.
On a Dell 2950 running Xeon 5160/3GHz (4 cores), 8Gb memory, RAID 10 15K rpm
drives (Perc 5/I SAS I
Hi Robert,
The way non-correlated subqueries are sometimes optimized into correlated ones
and then executed for each row in the outer table is a well-known MySQL
deficiency, yes. I would not really look for it to be fixed soon, though it's
been in progress for a while. The version in which
Is there a way to get the full table.column always in mysql client when
using the auto-tab completion feature? I'm currently using 5.0.36.
The way it works now is a bit confusing. Notice I have TWO different
DateOnly columns (for example) in two different tables. [middle
column]
mysql select
Data partitioning? Sorry, I disagree that partitioning a table into more
and more servers is the way to scale properly. Perhaps putting
databases' tables onto different servers with different hardware
designed to meat different usage patterns is a good idea, but data
partitioning was a very short
Sometimes partitioning is absolutely necessary. If you can't run a
cluster - how else can you really scale writes to the database? Some
companies can't use clustering because in 5.0.x (the non-beta release)
clustering is all done in memory - all tables have to be in memory (just
like the old
You certainly have a right to disagree, but pretty much every
scalability talk at the MySQL conference a few weeks ago was focused
on data partitioning and sharding. And those talks very given by folks
working for some of the most popular (top 100) websites in the world.
It certainly looks like
Wow.
The problem with sharding I have is the large amount of code
required in the app to make it work. IMHO the app should be agnostic to
the underlying database system (by that I don't mean the DB in use such
as MySQL or whatever or the schema, I mean the way the DB has been
deployed) so that
I noticed if my program executes a lot of Select statements, Windows XP
will slow down when the program completes. I did some investigating and
mysqld-nt.exe has close to 100,000 handles created when my program ends
(shown in Task Manager and SysInternals Process Explorer). As each Select
OK. Going to try this again. After reading through these emails I
think I have learned a little more about the way you are thinking.
I DO NOT want to start some kind of flame war.
However, I disagree very strongly with what you are saying. Yes, you
are right, sharding does require more
35 matches
Mail list logo
