杨涛涛
*Stop top posting.*
*
*
*thanks.*
*
*
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:16 AM, 杨涛涛 wrote:
> Hi.
> I think if there are not some concurrency visitors, you should not use it.
> Otherwise, just put it.
> David Yeung, In China, Beijing.
> My First Blog:http://yueliangdao0608.cublog.cn
> My
Hi.
I think if there are not some concurrency visitors, you should not use it.
Otherwise, just put it.
David Yeung, In China, Beijing.
My First Blog:http://yueliangdao0608.cublog.cn
My Second Blog:http://yueliangdao0608.blog.51cto.com
My Msn: yueliangdao0...@gmail.com
2010/12/1 Wagner Bianchi
I'll provide it to, bear with me, pls...
Best regards.
--
WB
2010/11/30 Johan De Meersman
> Interesting, but I feel the difference is rather small - could you rerun
> with, say, 50.000 queries ? Also, different concurrency levels (1, 100)
> might be interesting to see.
>
> Yes, I'm to lazy to
Interesting, but I feel the difference is rather small - could you rerun
with, say, 50.000 queries ? Also, different concurrency levels (1, 100)
might be interesting to see.
Yes, I'm to lazy to do it myself, what did you think :-p
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Wagner Bianchi
wrote:
> Friends,
Friends, I did a benchmark regarding to this subject.
Please, I am considering your comments.
=> http://wbianchi.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/insert-x-insert-delayed/
Best regards.
--
WB
2010/11/30 Wagner Bianchi
> Maybe, the table in use must be a table that is inside cache now - SHOW
> OPEN TABL
Maybe, the table in use must be a table that is inside cache now - SHOW OPEN
TABLES, controlled by table_cache, I mean.
Well, if the amount of data trasactioned is too small as a simple INSERT,
you don't have to be worried, I suggest. If you partition the table, we must
a benchmark to know the per
I would assume that it's slower because it gets put on the delay thread
anyway, and thus executes only whenever that thread gets some attention. I'm
not sure wether there are other influencing factors.
I should also think that "not in use" in this context means "not locked
against inserts", so the
What I'm confused by though, is this line.
"Note that INSERT DELAYED is slower than a normal INSERT if the table is not
otherwise in use." What's the definition of "in use"? Does a logging table
do that given that it's pretty much append-only/write-only?
Waynn
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:19 PM,
No, I think it's a good idea to do INSERT DELAYED here - it's only logging
application, and it's generally more important to not slow down the
application for that. It's only ever into a single table, so there's only
going to be a single delay thread for it anyway.
Archive tables are a good idea,
Well, analyze if you need to create an excessive overhead into the MySQL
Server because a simple INSERT. What you must have a look is it:
- How much data this connection is delivering to MySQL's handlers?
- A word DELAYED in this case is making MySQL surfer?
Perhaps, you are sophisticating
I'm adding a table to our site that logs all page loads. In the past, when
I built this, I used MyISAM and INSERT DELAYED. I went back to look at the
documentation to see if I should still do this, and saw this (taken from
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/insert-delayed.html):
Note that IN
11 matches
Mail list logo
