so why do you search a list of known bugs instead update your mysql?
5.5.8 is the FIRST ga version of 5.5
currently we have 5.5.16
no, i do not know if 5.5.16 is solving your problem but hwat i know
is that the updates were bot relöeased just for fun
Am 12.10.2011 06:28, schrieb Hal?sz S?ndor:
>
I find that, when under Vista the MySQL daemon has been shut down, by giving
the command
start mysqld -b"%CD%"
in the root directory where MySQL 5.5.8 (the version running on this computer)
has been stored from an instance of command prompt with administrator authority
issued by a user that lack
Generally when one has this problem one joins this query with something from
which one can get the whole list, something like this:
SELECT identifier, IFNULL(c, 0) AS Good,
(query with COUNT) AS P RIGHT JOIN table-of-identifiers ON P.identifier =
table-of-identifiers.identifier
The "c" is
On 10/11/2011 12:26 PM, Paul Halliday wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Peter Brawley
wrote:
On 10/11/2011 8:11 AM, Paul Halliday wrote:
I have the following query:
SELECT COUNT(signature) AS count, MAX(timestamp) AS maxTime,
INET_NTOA(src_ip), map1.cc as src_cc, INET_NTOA(dst_ip), ma
Thanks for the information. One final question in what ways should we use
EXPLAIN EXTENDED statement to help improve our query performance.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Johan De Meersman wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Rik Wasmus"
> >
> > Depends on the data and usage, but
Hello,
I have a problem with the following query:
SELECT subject_identifier, COUNT(*) FROM asr_sentence_score WHERE
total_words = correct_words GROUP BY subject_identifier;
OutPut:
++--+
| subject_identifier | COUNT(*) |
++--+
|
- Original Message -
> From: "Paul Halliday"
>
> Is it OK to keep adding to those joins? In a view there could be say
> 50 countries. The user can keep on adding more to exclude. So would I
> just expand on the ANDs like so:
>
> AND map1.cc !='CA' AND map1.cc !='US' AND map1.cc !='LV'...
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Peter Brawley
wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 8:11 AM, Paul Halliday wrote:
>>
>> I have the following query:
>>
>> SELECT COUNT(signature) AS count, MAX(timestamp) AS maxTime,
>> INET_NTOA(src_ip), map1.cc as src_cc, INET_NTOA(dst_ip), map2.cc as
>> dst_cc, signature, sig
* Brandon Phelps [111011 07:43]:
> Tim,
> Just a reminder, as I am not sure if it is documented or not;
> After you get MySQL up and running via the DMG package be sure to
> install the System Preferences pane (it didn't use to install by
> default, not sure if it does now) which should be one o
Tim,
Just a reminder, as I am not sure if it is documented or not; After you get
MySQL up and running via the DMG package be sure to install the System
Preferences pane (it didn't use to install by default, not sure if it does now)
which should be one of the icons you get when the DMG first o
Thanks for the pointer. Digging out reference books to learn how to do a join.
:-)
On Oct 11, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Johan De Meersman wrote:
> Which probably means not so much to someone who doesn't even know what a join
> is :-)
>
> Have a look at http://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_join.asp .
R
* Tim Johnson [111010 15:37]:
> I familiar with mysql on linux, as of late - ubuntu.
> I am installing mysql on a mac mini, with the Lion - osx 10.7
> operating system.
>
> mysql-server was downloaded and built with macports.
> Following instructions included has not resulted in a successful
> st
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Moore"
>
> Be mindful that your query is using 2 tables and 'SELECT *'.
Which probably means not so much to someone who doesn't even know what a join
is :-)
Have a look at http://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_join.asp .
--
Bier met grenadyn
Is als
Hey, welcome to the lists,
Be mindful that your query is using 2 tables and 'SELECT *'.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Biz-comm wrote:
> I am trying to write a query for a web page that shows a list of users in a
> particular group.
>
> There are 3 tables:
> pm1_users that uses UserID
> pm1
I only use ports for a very few number of apps, such as irssi, newer versions
of perl, etc.
I was recommending the OP use the DMG installer, as it comes with everything
necessary, including startup scripts.
-Brandon
On 10/11/2011 10:05 AM, Vladislav Geller wrote:
Hi Brandon,
MacPorts is pra
Hi Brandon,
MacPorts is practically dead. I tihnk you will have more luck with
http://mxcl.github.com/homebrew/
I have not built mysql with it though on lion.
regards,
Vladislav
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Brandon Phelps wrote:
> Is there any reason why you are using ports and not the na
Is there any reason why you are using ports and not the native 64-bit DMG from
mysql.com?
http://www.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/#downloads
I run the latest version (5.5.15) on my macbook running lion and the install
goes without a hitch.
Brandon
On 10/10/2011 07:34 PM, Tim Johnson wrote:
I f
- Original Message -
> From: "Rik Wasmus"
>
> Depends on the data and usage, but probably I'd go for a index(a,b) &
> index(b,a) if reads heavily outnumber writes. As index(a) is covered
> by index(a,b), and index(b) by index(b,a), we don't need to add those,
> which saves time on modifi
On 10/11/2011 8:11 AM, Paul Halliday wrote:
I have the following query:
SELECT COUNT(signature) AS count, MAX(timestamp) AS maxTime,
INET_NTOA(src_ip), map1.cc as src_cc, INET_NTOA(dst_ip), map2.cc as
dst_cc, signature, signature_id, ip_proto FROM event LEFT JOIN
mappings AS map1 ON event.src_ip
I have the following query:
SELECT COUNT(signature) AS count, MAX(timestamp) AS maxTime,
INET_NTOA(src_ip), map1.cc as src_cc, INET_NTOA(dst_ip), map2.cc as
dst_cc, signature, signature_id, ip_proto FROM event LEFT JOIN
mappings AS map1 ON event.src_ip = map1.ip LEFT JOIN mappings AS map2
ON event
> In this instance would you create four indexes key(a) key(b) key(a,b) key
> (b,a) ? Or is the decision based on the query response time ?
Depends on the data and usage, but probably I'd go for a index(a,b) &
index(b,a) if reads heavily outnumber writes. As index(a) is covered by
index(a,b), a
In this instance would you create four indexes key(a) key(b) key(a,b) key (b,a)
? Or is the decision based on the query response time ?
On 11 Oct 2011, at 13:40, Rik Wasmus wrote:
>> Next question. If you have the two separate indexes and then do two
>> queries, one for a and one for b. If you
> Next question. If you have the two separate indexes and then do two
> queries, one for a and one for b. If you then get a list of unique id's
> of both, would it be faster to create an intersection yourself rather
> than have the server do the legwork?
If you only have 2 unrelated indexes on a &
On 2011/10/11 02:30 PM, Alex Schaft wrote:
On 2011/10/11 02:22 PM, Rik Wasmus wrote:
Just to clarify having key indexes of (a,b) or (b,a) have no
difference ?
They DO.
See it as lookup table which starts with 'a' in the first case, and
'b' in the
second one. Looking for anything that matches
On 2011/10/11 02:22 PM, Rik Wasmus wrote:
Just to clarify having key indexes of (a,b) or (b,a) have no difference ?
They DO.
See it as lookup table which starts with 'a' in the first case, and 'b' in the
second one. Looking for anything that matches 'b' for an index (a,b) requires
a full scan
> Just to clarify having key indexes of (a,b) or (b,a) have no difference ?
They DO.
See it as lookup table which starts with 'a' in the first case, and 'b' in the
second one. Looking for anything that matches 'b' for an index (a,b) requires
a full scan as you don't know 'a', likewise searchin
The difference is based on the relative frequency of queries where a is
important vs. where b is important. Either way, what will happen is that the
index scan will isolate the first item mentioned, then scan the result set
to isolate the second term.
e.g.
SELECT * FROM someTable WERE a = someVal
Just to clarify having key indexes of (a,b) or (b,a) have no difference ?
On 11 Oct 2011, at 09:36, Johan De Meersman wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Alex Schaft"
>>
>> If you have a table with columns A & B, and might do a where on A or
>> B, or an order by A, B, would single
- Original Message -
> From: "Alex Schaft"
>
> If you have a table with columns A & B, and might do a where on A or
> B, or an order by A, B, would single column indexes on A and B suffice
> or would performance on the order by query be improved by an index on
> A,B?
Depends on usage :-)
I don't have a direct answer for you, just some thoughts:
* traditionally, "localhost" is thought of as an alias for 127.0.0.1
* mysql however, tends to not interpret it like when connecting to the local
server and instead tries to connect to the socket
* to force mysql client to connect over
If you have a table with columns A & B, and might do a where on A or B,
or an order by A, B, would single column indexes on A and B suffice or
would performance on the order by query be improved by an index on A,B?
Thanks
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.co
31 matches
Mail list logo
