t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Faster reindexing
> umm say i reindex after a reimport i usually drop all the indexes first ,
> then a
umm say i reindex after a reimport i usually drop all the indexes first ,
then add indexes again one by one , seems to be quicker for me especially
for fulltext indexes , doing it at once tends to be slower, must crunch the
cpu a bit dont know
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:51:01PM -0500, Paul DuBoi
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:51:01PM -0500, Paul DuBois wrote:
> At 14:14 +0700 7/9/03, Dominicus Donny wrote:
> >Sorry, my mistake. It's "reindexing" then.
> >Once i should add 2 key indexes on a huge table.
> >But instead of alter the table in 1 single query,
> >I build each index 1 by 1.
>
> Gene
ian Weimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: donderdag 10 juli 2003 10:06
To: Dathan Vance Pattishall
Cc: 'Paul DuBois'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Faster reindexing
"Dathan Vance Pattishall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe increasing
>
> #use for when my
"Dathan Vance Pattishall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe increasing
>
> #use for when mysql is doing a check or repair
> set-variable= myisam_sort_buffer_size=64M
>
> to a higher value will make the index happen faster on the fly.
MySQL doesn't seem to honour this variable. I've set it
___Archon___###
- Original Message -
From: "Paul DuBois" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dominicus Donny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Faster reindexing
At 11:23 +0700 7/9/03, Dominicus Donny w
"Dathan Vance Pattishall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> #use for when mysql is doing a check or repair
> set-variable= myisam_sort_buffer_size=64M
>
> to a higher value will make the index happen faster on the fly.
Oops. I only adjusted the key_buffer value. Probably I should set
myisam_sor
PM
-->To: Florian Weimer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Subject: Re: Faster reindexing
-->
-->At 9:39 +0200 7/7/03, Florian Weimer wrote:
-->>I've got a table with 100 million rows and need some indexes on it
-->>(one row is 126 bytes).
-->>
-->>I'm currently using M
From: Paul DuBois [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 5:23 AM
To: Dominicus Donny; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Faster reindexing
At 11:23 +0700 7/9/03, Dominicus Donny wrote:
>Try analyze your table(s).
What information will this yield to make indexing faster?
>
&
e table/db also located on another drive/partition.
"Me fail English? That's unpossible"
###___Archon___###
- Original Message -
From: "Paul DuBois" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dominicus Donny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednes
"Paul DuBois" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Florian Weimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:23 AM
Subject: RE: Faster reindexing
when reimporting or reinserting or whatever from a huge db i usually drop
all the indexes reimport
t;;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:23 AM
Subject: RE: Faster reindexing
> when reimporting or reinserting or whatever from a huge db i usually drop
> all the indexes reimport then create them again much quicker
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul DuB
: Faster reindexing
At 9:39 +0200 7/7/03, Florian Weimer wrote:
>I've got a table with 100 million rows and need some indexes on it
>(one row is 126 bytes).
>
>I'm currently using MyISAM and the indexing proceeds at an
>astonishingly low rate: about 200 MB per hour. This is
At 9:39 +0200 7/7/03, Florian Weimer wrote:
I've got a table with 100 million rows and need some indexes on it
(one row is 126 bytes).
I'm currently using MyISAM and the indexing proceeds at an
astonishingly low rate: about 200 MB per hour. This is rate is far
too low; if we had to recover the dat
I've got a table with 100 million rows and need some indexes on it
(one row is 126 bytes).
I'm currently using MyISAM and the indexing proceeds at an
astonishingly low rate: about 200 MB per hour. This is rate is far
too low; if we had to recover the database for some reason, we'd have
to wait fo
15 matches
Mail list logo
