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
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
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.
an use without locking the table?
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> 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 20
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 da
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 ho
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
> tab
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 do
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
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
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 doin
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 re
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
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
>
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 transaction
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 lot
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 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 abl
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 th
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
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
> WHE
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.
>
> My
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 d
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 interc
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
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 m
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 un
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
the
mysql command line client doesn't change the problem in any way. In any
case, I can't do any of this by writing commands to a file 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
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: me
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
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 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 i
36 matches
Mail list logo
