Hello everyone,
We just released a new version of our MySQL appliance:
http://www.turnkeylinux.org/appliances/mysql
In a nutshell, this is an extremely easy way to get a MySQL instance up
and running on your server or VM (VMware, VirtualBox, Xen, KVM) of
choice in just a couple of minutes.
Chan
I don't think it locks the tables. The behavior may be similar, but I
seriously doubt that's what's happening. Take a snapshot of SHOW
INNODB STATUS while this is going on. And use mysqladmin debug and
check the error log. Then put those in some pastebin and send us the
link. And realize that
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> My guess would be that your table is too small to bother using an
> index on. There's some information in the MySQL docs about when it
> chooses to use an index. For small tables, using one makes the query
> slower.
I think this is likel
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Morten Primdahl wrote:
> around while trying to figure out why the first query was slow and the
> subsequent snappy.
Given that you posted that a MySQL restart does not change anything,
but a system restart does, I put my money on the filesystem cache
having buffer
Baron,
I am using 5.0.37.
While it may be true that there is a bug that shows tables as being locked
when they really aren't, I do not think that applies here. I do know that
when a table shows a status of 'Locked' in the Navicat Server Monitor that
the transaction which created and is proce
I hope this is the right list as it concerns mysql and php ???
I just realized that an open connection is necessary to
usemysql_real_escape_string...So how do you sanitize an include page
used to open a connection
This is the page
// db1.php
// SQL login parameters for local environment
$local_dbho
On Mar 4, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Jocelyn Fournier wrote:
Just curious : if there's no index on the column why don't you try
to add one ? That's probably why it takes a lot of time on the
production machine.
Hehe.. I can understand why you ask, I over simplified the question
which was wrong of
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:22 PM, wrote:
> On a high read/write load.. is it good to split log (binlogs, innodb txn
> logs) and data (all tables, innodb tablespace) in different partitions ?
>
> Anybody had any experience ?
>
> For example; out of 25 disks array with 142GB 1rpm... I would like
Just curious : if there's no index on the column why don't you try to
add one ? That's probably why it takes a lot of time on the production
machine.
Jocelyn
Le 04/03/2009 18:26, Morten Primdahl a écrit :
Thanks for all the suggestions. The caching must be done somewhere else.
There is no
Carl,
Locked status in SHOW PROCESSLIST and a table being locked are
different. There is a bug in MySQL that shows Locked status for
queries accessing InnoDB tables in some cases. What version of MySQL
are you using?
The table is not really locked, you're just seeing that as a side
effect of wh
Carl,
Locked status in SHOW PROCESSLIST and a table being locked are
different. There is a bug in MySQL that shows Locked status for
queries accessing InnoDB tables in some cases. What version of MySQL
are you using?
The table is not really locked, you're just seeing that as a side
effect of wh
When I upgraded from 5.0 to 5.1, I fetched the 5.1 reference manual. Is it
my imagination, or is this thing messed up? Searching for a term comes up
with nothing (try "Varchar"), and the index is not in alphabetical order.
Regards,
Jerry Schwartz
The Infoshop by Global Information Incorpo
I did check that all tables are Innodb.
I was using the Navicat Server Monitor because I know that when I see the
monitor reporting a status of locked during an attempted query, that user
comes to a complete halt until the lock is cleared (usually by the bad query
finishing.)
I will check th
One more note.
Perrin asked if I was using any select... for update. The answer is no,
neither in the select query that seems to be locking the tables nor in the
queries that are processing transactions.
Surprisingly, one of the tables that reports being locked is never accessed
in the repo
2009/3/4 Carl :
> However, when I had all the pieces in the query
> (copy attached), I could easily see it was locking tables using the Server
> Monitor in Navicat.
I don't know what that is, but I think you'd better look at something
closer to the bone, like SHOW INNODB STATUS.
> Explain (copy a
Lets say HP Modular Storage/Smart Array..
http://h18006.www1.hp.com/storage/disk_storage/msa_diskarrays/san_arrays/index.html
From: Chaim Rieger
Subject: Re: MySQL Log and Data directories
To: "Michael Dykman"
Cc: dbrb2002-...@yahoo.com, mysql@lists.mysql.com
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 10:
Under stress (having transaction entered), the query shows that it is still
locking the tables. I rewrote the query and tested it step by step but
could not tell whether tyhe partially complete query was locking tables
because it ran so fast. However, when I had all the pieces in the query
(c
Michael Dykman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:22 PM, wrote:
On a high read/write load.. is it good to split log (binlogs, innodb txn logs)
and data (all tables, innodb tablespace) in different partitions ?
Anybody had any experience ?
For example; out of 25 disks array with 142GB 1rpm.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:22 PM, wrote:
> On a high read/write load.. is it good to split log (binlogs, innodb txn
> logs) and data (all tables, innodb tablespace) in different partitions ?
>
> Anybody had any experience ?
>
> For example; out of 25 disks array with 142GB 1rpm... I would like
Dear MySQL users,
MySQL Community Server 5.1.32, a new version of the popular Open
Source Database Management System, has been released. MySQL 5.1.32 is
recommended for use on production systems.
For an overview of what's new in MySQL 5.1, please see
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/mys
On a high read/write load.. is it good to split log (binlogs, innodb txn logs)
and data (all tables, innodb tablespace) in different partitions ?
Anybody had any experience ?
For example; out of 25 disks array with 142GB 1rpm... I would like to keep
few disks to logs and rest to data .. is
I did some tests a couple of weeks ago, using using SQL_NO_CACHE and
clearing out the OS buffer after each query was enough to give me
consistent results that were based on system load rather than cache
efficiency. These two are by far the major factors in my experience,
although no doubt other
MySQL Key buffer and OS cache could also have an impact.
Have you tried disabling the Key Buffer first ?
Jocelyn
Le 04/03/2009 18:26, Morten Primdahl a écrit :
Thanks for all the suggestions. The caching must be done somewhere
else. There is no index on the column and there are about 500.00
Thanks for all the suggestions. The caching must be done somewhere
else. There is no index on the column and there are about 500.000 rows
in the table. A MySQL restart doesn't "flush" the cache in play, but a
full restart of my laptop does (OS X).
I may be chasing the wrong problem, but w
If SQL_NO_CACHE is specify, the cache will never be used :
The Query Cache behaviour is quite simple, it uses the exact given query
syntax as a hash to search into the query cache;
it means writing 'select' or 'SELECT' is different. It also means adding
SQL_NO_CACHE will search in the cache for
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Thomas Spahni wrote:
> SQL_NO_CACHE means that the query result is not cached. It does not mean
> that the cache is not used to answer the query.
Oh, right, he's looking for this:
SET SESSION query_cache_type=off;
- Perrin
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For lis
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Morten wrote:
Hi, I was hoping that using SQL_NO_CACHE would help me bypass the query
cache, but judging from the below it doesn't. What can I do to avoid the
query cache?
Thanks.
Morten
mysql> select count(*) from users where email = 'hello';
+--+
| count(*) |
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Morten wrote:
> Hi, I was hoping that using SQL_NO_CACHE would help me bypass the query
> cache, but judging from the below it doesn't.
You probably just brought the data into the cache and are not hitting
the query cache.
- Perrin
--
MySQL General Mailing List
Keep in mind the file system caches too, so it might be working, but the
file access is still getting put in memory. You should disable that too
if you really want consistent results.
In Linux you can dump the file system cache between each query, I have
no clue how to do it in windows or other sy
Hi, I was hoping that using SQL_NO_CACHE would help me bypass the
query cache, but judging from the below it doesn't. What can I do to
avoid the query cache?
Thanks.
Morten
mysql> select count(*) from users where email = 'hello';
+--+
| count(*) |
+--+
|0 |
+-
Hi all,
I have a view that is joining two base tables. I can update through
the view, but insert only through the base tables. Now I am having the
problem that seems to boil down to the following: When I insert into
the base tables inside a transaction, the view doesn't seem to update.
Only after
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Thomas Spahni wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm stuck with the following problem:
>
> SLAVE has a bunch of databases of which one or two are replicated from
> MASTER.
>
> I'm writing a shell script to be run by an ordinary user on SLAVE. This
> script should know which of th
Thanks to all of you.
The key was the 107488 rows. I restructured the query so that it started
with something smaller and it 1) runs faster (I'm guessing the reduced use
of temp space) and 2) did not seem to cause any locking problems (I will
test this under load today.)
I have attached a c
Hi
I'm stuck with the following problem:
SLAVE has a bunch of databases of which one or two are replicated from
MASTER.
I'm writing a shell script to be run by an ordinary user on SLAVE. This
script should know which of the databases on SLAVE are replicated.
Configuration: MASTER has --bin
34 matches
Mail list logo
