On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:19:32 +0900, Batara Kesuma
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Tobias,
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:48:16 +0100 (CET)
Tobias Asplund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I try to install MySQL 4.1.9 (official RPM from mysql.com). My machine
is running linux 2.6.9, and it has 4GB of RAM.
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:07:19 +0100, Hannes Rohde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
We use MySQL as a database backend on a portal site. We have a two
database server setup (one master, one slave). The master is a PIV 3,2 GHz.,
2 GB Ram and a 80GB Raid-1 system. The slave is a PIV 3.2
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:40:34 -0400, Sun, Jennifer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
We have a job that do 'select * from big-table' on a staging mysql database, then
dump to data warehouse, it is scheduled to run once a day, but may be run manually.
Also we have several other small OLTP database
-
From: Marc Slemko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 2:24 PM
To: Sun, Jennifer
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: tuning suggestion for large query
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:40:34 -0400, Sun, Jennifer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
We have a job that do 'select
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:19:44 -0400, Sun, Jennifer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Marc,
What version of myisam table you are talking about? We are on 4.0.20, when I ran the
big table query, I tried to insert to it twice without any issues.
The -q worked good for mysql client. Thanks.
There
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:07:25 -0400 , David Seltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I've been searching the archives mysql documentation for a while and I
can't seem to find an answer to my question -
Is there a way to force InnoDB to shrink its filesize? I just dropped a 7GB
table, but
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:42:03 -0400 , David Seltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Marc,
Is there really no way to reclaim unused space in an InnoDB table space? If
not, why is this not considered a tremendous limitation?
Some do consider it a tremendous limitation. It all depends on how it
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 01:35:44 -0700, Jeremy Zawodny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 01:26:15PM -0500, gerald_clark wrote:
Steve Richter wrote:
exactly! Is Linux distributed under the same type of license as MySql? If
I sell software that runs on linux I dont have to
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:50:38 -0500, Keith Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just discovered that two of my tables (out of about 300)
show a very unusual behavior. This is that select count(*) ...
and selecting all the rows and counting them do not produce
the same number.
This is on
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:47:37 +0100, Adaikalavan Ramasamy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This seems more like the solution I want. I am using perl-DBI and when
there is an error (i.e. duplicate insert), the rest of the scrip it not
executed. But this is gives me the following error. What am I doing
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:03:25 -0700, Matt Solnit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How is it possible to have a hit rate of 1000/1000? Doesn't the buffer
get inOn Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:03:25 -0700, Matt Solnit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How is it possible to have a hit rate of 1000/1000? Doesn't the
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:13:36 +0200, Jan Kirchhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
We are currently using a 4.0.16-replication-setup (debian-linux, kernel
2.4.21, xfs) of two 2.4ghz Intel-Pentium4 systems with 3gig RAM each
and SCSI-Hardware-Raid, connected via gigabit-ethernet. We are reaching
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:26:48 +0100, Marvin Wright
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm now running redhat AS 3.0 with kernel version 2.4 and have 8GB of RAM.
If I set my innodb_buffer_pool to 2048M, it just will not start, I get this
error.
040713 22:10:24 mysqld started
040713 22:10:24
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 15:46:37 +0100 , Marvin Wright
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Current Platform
RH version is 7.3
IBM Blade Server - 2 x Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.20GHz
32 GB SCSI
4 GB Ram
This is the platform we are moving to in a week or so
RH Enterprise AS 2.1 or 3.0
4 x
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 16:07:58 +0100 , Javier Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have changed all our tables to InnoDB and now the server is not able to
handle the load, even when we are not running the SELECTs statements against
these tables yet.
As I mentioned in my email we make a lots of
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:48:50 +0100 , Javier Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really don't like the idea to set innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit to 2, the
information in these tables is important. On the other hand there is nothing
I can do from the point of view of the number of transactions.
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, MerchantSense wrote:
Seems ok to me...
It seems to be checking all the rows in the explain for some reason too...
mysql show index from ip2org;
+++--+--+-+---+-
+--++-+
|
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Haitao Jiang wrote:
Marc
mysqld runs on a very powerful Operton machine with
16GB memory and barely any other application process
running, it is hard to believe that a simple select
that runs under 2 second will utilize all the
resources...that is why I tend to think
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Haitao Jiang wrote:
Each of 4 individual query only took 0.6 seconds,
there is no other clients, it hardly to believe taht
mysql query performance will degrade 300% (from 0.6s
to ~1.9s) if we have 4 concurrent connections...
As far as I know, MySQL should be able to
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Haitao Jiang wrote:
Yes. The time I measure like I said is purely around
statement.execQuery() call. Connection creation is not
a factor here at all.
My database has 1.64 million rows and 4 queries are
all selects, which are identical in both serial and
parallel cases.
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Scott Switzer wrote:
Hi,
I am having a difficult time with a query. My environment is MySQL
v4.0.16 (InnoDB tables) running on Linux (latest 2.4 kernel).
Basically, I am running a query of the form:
INSERT INTO temp_tbl
SELECT c1,c2...
FROM t1,t2,t3,t4
WHERE ...
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Emmett Bishop wrote:
Howdy all,
Quick question about what I'm seeing in the BUFFER
POOL AND MEMORY section...
I've configured the innodb_buffer_pool_size to be 128M
and when I do a show variables like 'innodb%' I see
| innodb_buffer_pool_size | 134217728
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Stormblade wrote:
Ok. Love MySQL and I will be using it for my personal use and recommending
it to clients as a lower cost alternative. I've only been using it for a
very short time but there one major gripe I have with it and I believe it's
just a design thing.
MySQL
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, mayuran wrote:
I would like to optimize the configuration settings
for this beast of a machine, here are the specs:
Quad Xeon 3ghz (4x2 = 8 cpus), 512 cache
16 gigs ram
running Redhat Enterprise 3.0 AS
All tables are InnoDB.
I read this warning in the MySQL
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Tim Cutts wrote:
On 14 Apr 2004, at 10:57 pm, Adam Erickson wrote:
(This is probably not the best place for this post, but here goes...)
The (soon to be released) MySQL cluster software docs use a sample
cluster node configured with Dual Xeons and 16GB of ram.
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Max Campos wrote:
On Apr 13, 2004, at 2:01pm, Michael Stassen wrote:
You shouldn't be surprised. This is normal behavior.
interchangeStatus is a varchar, so
select fileName from outDocInterchange where interchangeStatus = 91;
requires that interchangeStatus
Has anyone seen situations where innodb's deadlock detection fails
to detect a deadlock, and things remain deadlocked until the lock
wait timeout expires and the server returns a Lock wait timeout exceeded;
Try restarting transaction, or have any ideas for why it may be
happening?
There are no
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Lorderon wrote:
Hi All,
If I got one table A_table with many columns, and a second table B_table is
the same but with just primary field and unique field...
How much meaningful is the time difference between these queries?
1. SELECT unique_field FROM A_table WHERE
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Keith Thompson wrote:
Given these two tables:
create table t1 (
id int unsigned auto_increment,
a int,
... [other fields]
primary key (id),
index aid (a,id)
) type=innodb;
create table t2 (
id int unsigned,
and
loading them using the mysql client, I need to do it using JDBC. I
have no problem executing all my updates sequentially except for the
fact that it is far too slow.
But thanks for the response...
;)
Alexis
Quoting Marc Slemko [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If I do a query such as:
SELECT
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Santino wrote:
Have You test in operator?
select * from table where id in (10,20,30,50,60,90, )
Yes, IN does perform at the levels I want and works for the simplified
example I gave, but doesn't work for the generalized case I need,
which is matching individual rows in
If I do a query such as:
SELECT * from foo where fooid = 10 or fooid = 20 or fooid = 03 ...
with a total of around 1900 or fooid = parts on a given table with 500k
rows, it takes about four times longer than doing 1900 separate
queries in the form:
SELECT * from foo where fooid = 10
fooid is
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Misaochankun wrote:
Error(using 2.5G RAM out of 4G total):
030924 15:39:55 mysqld started
Warning: Ignoring user change to 'mysql' because the user was set to
'mysql' earlier on the command line
InnoDB: Fatal error: cannot allocate 2684370944 bytes of
InnoDB: memory
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Wendell Dingus wrote:
I didn't notice a reply to this when first posted. Surely someone has
stuffed a lot of memory into an Opteron or Itanium by now and knows the
answer. Is a 64-bit Malloc all that is necessary or does INNODB have to
specifically support more memory in
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Marc,
- Original Message -
From: Marc Slemko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: mailing.database.mysql
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 7:19 AM
Subject: innodb use outside of explicit transactions
Suppose I have an innodb table in 4.0.14
Suppose I have an innodb table in 4.0.14 and do:
LOCK TABLE maggie
INSERT INTO maggie values(123, 'simpson');
UNLOCK TABLES
As soon as I issue LOCK TABLE, any transaction in progress is
automatically committed.
By what point is this INSERT guaranteed to be committed to disk
(ie. redo log)?
Is
36 matches
Mail list logo
