Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:39 PM
To: Rick James
Cc: Robert DiFalco; mysql@lists.mysql.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Innodb Locks
There is a detailed write-up on how locking works in the manual:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Innodb Locks
We'll do some testing with innodb_locks_unsafe_for_binlog but if this
fixes the problem then it is a pretty safe assumption that the problem
also exists with subqueries in DELETE and UPDATE and not just for that
one case of INSERT as the article points
It's not a bug in InnoDB. There are far more knowledgeable people than I on this list,
but it should get a share-mode lock on anything it selects from, otherwise there might
be inconsistencies as it tries to serialize different transactions into the binary log
for replication
: Re: Innodb Locks
It's not a bug in InnoDB. There are far more knowledgeable people than
I on this list, but it should get a share-mode lock on anything it
selects from, otherwise there might be inconsistencies as it tries to
serialize different transactions into the binary log for replication
: 860.674.8341
-Original Message-
From: Robert DiFalco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:42 PM
To: Baron Schwartz
Cc: Rick James; mysql@lists.mysql.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Innodb Locks
Then I guess I am not understanding why re-writing
@lists.mysql.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Innodb Locks
It probably uses a single lock to handle a JOIN, and two locks to handle
a sub-SELECT. I doubt that it helps, but if I'm right it will change
what you see when you poking around.
Regards,
Jerry Schwartz
Global Information Incorporated
195
: Robert DiFalco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:50 AM
To: Jerry Schwartz; Baron Schwartz
Cc: Rick James; mysql@lists.mysql.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Innodb Locks
Right, as I understand it the query optimizer in 5.2 will
simply rewrite
these sub selects
it to SQL, and make sure you know how foreign key SQL syntax
See:
http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/77/12/1.html
Others... for overall, i prefer innodb :)
I know it's transaction safe and all, but not too sure if I need the
extra overhead.
If your concern is fast insert, how fast do you
don't really know.
How does one go about checking?
Dump it to SQL, and make sure you know how foreign key SQL syntax
See:
http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/77/12/1.html
Thanks. I'll take look.
Others... for overall, i prefer innodb :)
I know it's transaction safe and all
Hi All,
Just wanted to know if it would be faster/better to implement this
option into my.cnf
innodb_file_per_table = 1
which would essentially make each table a file on it's own rather than
have it all in 1 file.
My belief is that it would be slightly more advantageous compared to 1
BIG file.
In the last episode (Oct 09), Ow Mun Heng said:
Just wanted to know if it would be faster/better to implement this
option into my.cnf
innodb_file_per_table = 1
which would essentially make each table a file on it's own rather
than have it all in 1 file. My belief is that it would be
- Original Message -
From: Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ow Mun Heng [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: InnoDB, 1 file per table or 1 BIG table?
In the last episode (Oct 09), Ow Mun Heng said:
Just wanted to know
In the last episode (Oct 09), James Eaton said:
From: Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't think that the number of files has any impact on query
speed. The advantage file-per-table gives you is the ability to
recover unused space easily by running OPTIMIZE TABLE. With a
single tablespace,
, it's a lot easier to find a 20byte row in a 100K file than it
is finding it in a 40Gbyte file. While that is true, InnoDB is pretty
efficient, and really knows how to pull data out of the big table
space well... most of the benchmark gains we've seen and others have
reported are in the sub 1
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dembecki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Cc: Ow Mun Heng [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: InnoDB, 1 file per table or 1 BIG table?
There are some minor performance benefits here when run against
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 15:42 -0600, James Eaton wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dembecki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Cc: Ow Mun Heng [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How do you go about converting InnoDB databases from the single tablespace
to those using the table-per
against
of course every little bit helps.
Of course.. Esp when the Box is no Big Iron. :-)
corrupt InnoDB table file under file_per_table means only one table
is at risk as opposed to the entire database.
Didn't see it that way. That's Good as well.
One of the big things that really
.
MyISAM tables are faster than InnoDB, but they are more optimised for
READS than WRITEs, however due to the replication, (being done every 5
secs on ~5 tables), I'm wondering if this will cause performance losses
due to table-locks etc.
Thanks
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives
Is your MSSQL data structure contain such foreign key?
If yes, my isam is not suitable for you
Others... for overall, i prefer innodb :)
On 10/8/06, Ow Mun Heng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just curious as to which would have better performance for my needs.
backend is a MSSQL server and I
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 11:42 +0700, Ady Wicaksono wrote:
Is your MSSQL data structure contain such foreign key?
If yes, my isam is not suitable for you
Actually, you know what? I don't really know.
How does one go about checking?
Others... for overall, i prefer innodb :)
I know it's
Any thoughts on this? Should SomeTable be locked when performing the
UPDATE on AnotherTable?
---
Is there a detailed source for when innodb creates row or table locks?
I have a situation where one thread is performing this in one
transaction:
UPDATE SomeTable SET WHERE
IN (SELECT id FROM t);
-Original Message-
From: Robert DiFalco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:26 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Innodb Locks
Any thoughts on this? Should SomeTable be locked when performing the
UPDATE
On 10/2/06, Robert DiFalco wrote:
Is there a detailed source for when innodb creates row or table locks?
The sourcecode.
I have a situation where one thread is performing this in one
transaction:
UPDATE SomeTable SET WHERE SomeTable.id = N;
This is invoked after another thread
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Innodb Locks
On 10/2/06, Robert DiFalco wrote:
Is there a detailed source for when innodb creates row or table locks?
The sourcecode.
I have a situation where one thread is performing this in one
transaction:
UPDATE SomeTable SET WHERE
There is a detailed write-up on how locking works in the manual:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb-transaction-model.html
If you are not doing replication, you might check out innodb_locks_unsafe_for_binlog as
mentioned in http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb
Is there a detailed source for when innodb creates row or table locks?
I have a situation where one thread is performing this in one
transaction:
UPDATE SomeTable SET WHERE SomeTable.id = N;
This is invoked after another thread has kicked off this long running
query in another
Dear all,
our DB server crashed and when I try to start Mysql
/etc/init.d/mysql/start
I get these lins in my error log
060921 13:00:14 mysqld started
060921 13:00:14 InnoDB: Database was not shut down normally!
InnoDB: Starting crash recovery.
InnoDB: Reading tablespace information from
The error message says to go to
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/forcing-recovery.html to learn
how to set the different recovery options for innodb.
On 9/21/06, Sayed Hadi Rastgou Haghi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear all,
our DB server crashed and when I try to start Mysql
/etc/init.d
Здравствуйте, .
Hi all, i have some strange records in InnoDB status, what does they
all mean?
*** (2) TRANSACTION:
TRANSACTION 0 139334621, ACTIVE 1 sec, process no 594, OS thread id 2725583792
fetching rows, thread declared inside InnoDB 425
mysql tables in use 1, locked 1
1815 lock struct(s
Hi,
I want to know is there any difference between myisam primary index vs
innodb primary index...
--
Regards,
Lakshmi.M.P.
DBA Support
Sify Limited.
Extn:4134
** DISCLAIMER **
Information contained and transmitted by this E-MAIL is proprietary to
Sify Limited
Lakshmi wrote:
Hi,
I want to know is there any difference between myisam primary index vs
innodb primary index...
One's for a myisam table one's for an innodb table.
They are treated exactly the same - both are unique, both have indexes.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives
Hi Lakshmi ,
I guess both treated same . But physical structure of storage is
different from Myisam and Innodb .
Correct me if iam wrong .
Lakshmi wrote:
Hi,
I want to know is there any difference between myisam primary index vs
innodb primary index...
--
MySQL General Mailing List
Mike,
Oracle Corp. and MySQL AB renewed the InnoDB OEM contract in spring
2006. The licensing of InnoDB is the same as before and it is
distributed in the official MySQL distros.
Best regards,
Heikki Tuuri
CEO of Innobase Oy
VP of Oracle Corporation
Has Oracle placed any
@lists.mysql.com
Subject: myisam primary key with innodb primary key..
Hi,
I want to know is there any difference between myisam primary index vs
innodb primary index...
--
Regards,
Lakshmi.M.P.
DBA Support
Sify Limited.
Extn:4134
** DISCLAIMER **
Information contained
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I need some inputs regarding my.cnf :
We are using INNODB in our application.We have around 10
million records in the database. This will size up to
around 10GB of data.
Could you please suggest a sample my.cnf for this
configuration
On 9/7/06, Paul McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sounds like you program allows ad-hoc queries, so why don't you
just limit the number of rows returned by a select?
For example you could limit the number of rows to 1001. If the server
returns 1001, then display 1000 and tell the user
Hi,
Attached is the sample my.cnf for Innodb engine type.
Thanks,
ViSolve DB Team.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 7:31 PM
Subject: INNODB my.cnf
Hi All,
I need some inputs regarding my.cnf :
We are using
Hi All,
I need some inputs regarding my.cnf :
We are using INNODB in our application.We have around 10 million records
in the database. This will size up to around 10GB of data.
Could you please suggest a sample my.cnf for this configuration.
Machine used :
Sun netra 240 , dual processor
Hi Prasad
This question got me a bit interested as we're thinking of moving
some MyISAM tables to InnoDB and I haven't used it much.
I decided to test some of these ideas so I created an innodb table
and put some data into it and tried some selects:
(Running on MacBook Pro, 2.0ghz, 1gb
. My application has a huge database of around 10 millions.
The selects with INNODB falls drastically as the size of records grow. A
select count(*) that takes 4 secs with 1 million records takes 40 secs
with 3 million records.
Regards
Prasad
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Sims [mailto
. My application has a huge database of around 10 millions.
The selects with INNODB falls drastically as the size of records grow. A
select count(*) that takes 4 secs with 1 million records takes 40 secs
with 3 million records.
Regards
Prasad
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Sims [mailto
running out of
memory. My application has a huge database of around 10 millions.
The selects with INNODB falls drastically as the size of records grow. A
select count(*) that takes 4 secs with 1 million records takes 40 secs
with 3 million records.
Just read the fine manual, everything
On Sep 7, 2006, at 3:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need to know the number of rows that a query will return before
actually executing the query. So I am sending select count(*) before
sending select *. Actually I need to reject queries if the number of
records that it will return is huge,
Networks)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: problem with InnoDB
In the last episode (Sep 04), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Actually there is some requirement, where I need to know the number of
rows that I will get for my queries before actually executing the
query. Could you please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Dan,
Thanks for yur response. Does it makes sense to create an index on a
primary key ..as that is my smallest field ?
A primary key already has an index.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:
with InnoDB
In the last episode (Sep 04), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Actually there is some requirement, where I need to know the
number of
rows that I will get for my queries before actually executing the
query. Could you please suggest some way for this.
Your best bet is to create an index
In the last episode (Sep 07), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi Dan,
Thanks for yur response. Does it makes sense to create an index on a
primary key ..as that is my smallest field ?
It might, because in an InnoDB table, your primary index also holds
your row data. So it's actually your largest
Has Oracle placed any restrictions on using InnoDb and MySQL now that the
original MySQL AB license has expired with Heikki??
What is the name of the new MySQL transaction engine and is anyone using
it? Is it any good?
TIA
Mike
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:58 AM
To: Prasad Ramisetti (WT01 - Broadband Networks)
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: problem with InnoDB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi ,
select count(*) is painfully slow in case of innoDB when the number of
records are around 1 million. Ths
In the last episode (Sep 04), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Actually there is some requirement, where I need to know the number
of rows that I will get for my queries before actually executing the
query. Could you please suggest some way for this.
Your best bet is to create an index on the smallest
Hi,
I want to use --innodb-safe-binlog with mysql, but in the newest Version
of Mysql it is obsolet:
Note: --innodb-safe-binlog is not needed in MySQL 5.1, having been
made obsolete by
the introduction of XA transaction support in MySQL 5.0. See Section
13.4.7, XA Transactions.
but how
Ratheesh K J wrote:
Hello All,
I wanted to know what is the best size for Innodb key cache. We are currently
running MySQL 4.1.11
And we have set the buffer size to 1GB.
innodb_buffer_pool_size = 1G
The system has 4 GB RAM.
1) In such a case is the above setting ok?
2) All the tables
Hi,
I am facing a strange problem with INNODB. My application communicates with
mysql server using JDBC. I am using mysql 5.1 version.
Even after issuing connection.commit() / connection.rollback() commands, still
on the sql side the transactions are not getting closed properly. In our
behavior).
R.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:31 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Problem with INNODB transactions
Hi,
I am facing a strange problem with INNODB. My application communicates
with mysql server
Subject: RE: Problem with INNODB transactions
What connection pool code are you using? My guess is that the problem is
in your code somewhere. Either transactions are not being closed (i.e.
because of a connection pool flaw maybe?) or you have two threads trying
to update the same row at the same
Hello All,
I wanted to know what is the best size for Innodb key cache. We are currently
running MySQL 4.1.11
And we have set the buffer size to 1GB.
innodb_buffer_pool_size = 1G
The system has 4 GB RAM.
1) In such a case is the above setting ok?
2) All the tables are of Innodb type
3) We
Hi,
I posted the following code in one or two of my earlier posts and
_then_ it WAS working! I know there is no GROUP BY clause but IT WAS
WORKING somehow - the procedure ran fine and inserted quite a good few
records. However, NOW, after I have dropped and re-created the
database/tables/all
Hi,
Guys! Stange!!!
I am replying to my own post just to tell you that after posting the
previously message, I restarted my system and ran my VB6 program. To
my surprise, MySQL__IS__ executing the same stored procedure,
that it was previously complaining about, again and not complaining
most of my Storage enines is MyISAM i wanna change them all to|InnoDB
how do i do this ?thanks
|
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
most of my Storage enines is MyISAM i wanna change them all to|InnoDB
how do i do this ?
ALTER TABLE tblname ENGINE=innodb;
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
set the default storage engine to be used during the current
session by setting the storage_engine or table_type variable:
SET storage_engine=MYISAM;
SET table_type=BDB;
When MySQL is installed on Windows using the MySQL Configuration
Wizard, the InnoDB storage engine can be selected as the default
Hi,
I have the following database objects in a purely InnoDB database:
--
CREATE TABLE Person (
PersonIDint not null PRIMARY KEY
Hi,
There is a problem with CPU utlization when using INNODB. The CPU
utilization goes to 100% in a dual processor solaris box. With the same
setup, myISAM uses only 60% of the CPU.
Could someone please let me know what could be the problem. There are
some other processes running on the same
the stored procedure, MySQL hangs.
Any help?
--
Thanks in advance,
Asif
On 8/16/06, Asif Lodhi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have the following database objects in a purely InnoDB database
Hi,
There is a problem with CPU utlization when using INNODB. The CPU
utilization goes to 100% in a dual processor solaris box. With the same
setup, myISAM uses only 60% of the CPU.
Could someone please let me know what could be the problem. There are
some other processes running on the same
/goes in limbo quitely instead of throwing back an error.
Certainly smells like a bug. ???
I have psted the text of my original post at the end of this message.
--
Asif
I have the following database objects in a purely InnoDB database
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
There is a problem with CPU utlization when using INNODB. The CPU
utilization goes to 100% in a dual processor solaris box. With the same
setup, myISAM uses only 60% of the CPU.
As I said before, stuff like 'count(*)' queries cannot use an index in
innodb
CREATE FUNCTION CharValIsNumeric (v VARCHAR(15))
RETURNS boolean
BEGIN
declare i, l int(2);
set l=char_length(v);
set i=1;
while (i = l) and (substring(v,i,1) in
('1','2','3','4','5','6','7','8','9','0')) do
set i=i+1;
end while;
What if the string (v)
Hi ,
select count(*) is painfully slow in case of innoDB when the number of
records are around 1 million. Ths select count(*) query in myISAM takes
0.01 secs and the same query in InnoDB takes around 20.15 secs.
Can anybody suggest me how to speed up this query ?
Thanks
Prasad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi ,
select count(*) is painfully slow in case of innoDB when the number of
records are around 1 million. Ths select count(*) query in myISAM takes
0.01 secs and the same query in InnoDB takes around 20.15 secs.
Can anybody suggest me how to speed up this query
Hi,
Using MySQL-5.0.22/Win-XP-SP2 and storing data in InnoDB tables.
Clients connect from VB6. Enclosing all transactions in START
TRANSACTION ... COMMIT statements from VB6 clients.
I have the following query for a table tmp2 with a column x of data-type INT.
Insert into tmp2(x,y,x
Why can't output to error log file when INNODB happened ERROR1205?
All server error message is output to error log file, isn't it?
--
create table test (id int ,name text)engine=innodb;
insert into test values ( 1, 'test');
--
Pattern 1
--
CLIENT A:
begin;
select
Why can't output to error log file when INNODB happened ERROR1205?
All server error message is output to error log file, isn't it?
--
create table test (id int ,name text)engine=innodb;
insert into test values ( 1, 'test');
--
Pattern 1
--
CLIENT A:
begin;
select
On 7/28/06, Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Jul 28), leo huang said:
So, the deleted rows' disk space in tablespace can't re-use when I
use Innodb, can it? And the tablespace is growing when we update the
tables, even the amount of rows do not increase.
It can be re-used after
In the last episode (Jul 29), Jochem van Dieten said:
On 7/28/06, Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Jul 28), leo huang said:
So, the deleted rows' disk space in tablespace can't re-use when I
use Innodb, can it? And the tablespace is growing when we update
the tables, even the amount
hi, Chris
I'm sure it will, what makes you think it won't?
Because some paper say that when the row is deleted or update, Innodb
just make a mark that the row is deleted and it didn't delete the
rows. I can't find more information about the re-use tablespace. Can
you give me more?
Regards
leo huang wrote:
hi, Chris
I'm sure it will, what makes you think it won't?
Because some paper say that when the row is deleted or update, Innodb
just make a mark that the row is deleted and it didn't delete the
rows. I can't find more information about the re-use tablespace. Can
you give me
hi, Chris
So, the deleted rows' disk space in tablespace can't re-use when I
use Innodb, can it? And the tablespace is growing when we update the
tables, even the amount of rows do not increase.
Regards,
Leo Huang
2006/7/28, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
leo huang wrote:
hi, Chris
I'm sure
In the last episode (Jul 28), leo huang said:
2006/7/28, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
leo huang wrote:
Because some paper say that when the row is deleted or update,
Innodb just make a mark that the row is deleted and it didn't
delete the rows. I can't find more information about the re-use
11:51 PM
Subject: Re: Row count discrepancy when converting from MyISAM to InnoDB
On Jul 25, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Frank wrote:
Why is the record count so low after conversion to InnoDB?
Who should I believe: InnoDB or MyISAM?
Any ideas as to what can be done to avoid loss of this many rows
Yes your right dilip , but it wont help for INNODB .
INNODB , Rows ( show table status\G ) value is an approximation, and
may vary from the actual value .Since innodb doesnt keep track on record
count
For innodb use |SELECT COUNT(*)| to obtain an accurate count.Correct me
if iam wrong
hi, Chris
Thank you for your advice!
I know that Innodb use the logfiles circularly. Can Innodb re-use the
deleted rows' disk space in tablespace?
Regards,
Leo Huang
2006/7/26, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
leo huang wrote:
hi, Dilipkumar
Thank you very much!
I think I know the fact
leo huang wrote:
hi, Chris
Thank you for your advice!
I know that Innodb use the logfiles circularly. Can Innodb re-use the
deleted rows' disk space in tablespace?
I'm sure it will, what makes you think it won't?
You might need an 'optimize table' or something to see a reduction
I have a table of type MyISAM that is reporting 47 million rows when I do a
SELECT COUNT(*). When I convert this table to InnoDB, running a SELECT
COUNT(*) returns only 19 million rows. The conversion confirms 19 million
rows were inserted and reports no warnings or duplicates.
I have done
On Jul 25, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Frank wrote:
Why is the record count so low after conversion to InnoDB?
Who should I believe: InnoDB or MyISAM?
Any ideas as to what can be done to avoid loss of this many rows?
InnoDB doesn't keep a count on number of rows, like MyISAM does.
InnoDB only
Thank you to everyone who replied. It turned out I had index corruption and
after running an OPTIMIZE TABLE I was able to convert all the records to
InnoDB.
Thanks,
Frank
hi, Dilipkumar
Thank you very much!
I think I know the fact: The Innodb can't reuse the deleted rows' disk
space. And a solution is: dump the data; shutdown mysql; delete the
files; restart mysql; import the data.
Regards,
Leo Huang
2006/7/24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Try
leo huang wrote:
hi, Dilipkumar
Thank you very much!
I think I know the fact: The Innodb can't reuse the deleted rows' disk
space. And a solution is: dump the data; shutdown mysql; delete the
files; restart mysql; import the data.
InnoDB does re-use the space inside the database, it's
Hi,
Try using the optimize table tablename ,but this will keep the data
accordingly,but really if it is a disk space constraint you can go with re-org
process in which you will have to get a down time for mysql db.Process is
something like .
Dump all the Innodb tables drop the existing innodb
Hi, all
I know the Innodb use MVCC to achieve very high concurrency. Can
Innodb reuse the deleted rows disk space? I have an database which
have many update operation. If Innodb can't reuse the space of deleted
rows, I worry about that MySQL will exhaust our disk space very
quickly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
anyone know if there's any known issue with replication from InnoDB tables to
MyISAM tables?
I just switched a slave (mysql) to replicate from a different master that uses
InnoDB and now I'm seeing weird problems on the slave. Table corruption, apps
that can't
anyone know if there's any known issue with replication from InnoDB tables to
MyISAM tables?
I just switched a slave (mysql) to replicate from a different master that uses
InnoDB and now I'm seeing weird problems on the slave. Table corruption, apps
that can't connect etc.
thanks,
Jeff
necessary database that uses INNODB tables
exclusively. Unfortunately the disk usage on the box
didn't change. We're using a completely default MySQL
5.0.15 install on the box (a small centos linux box)
so we don't have innodb_file_per_table set in a my.cnf
file.
So I've got two basic questions
I use MySQL version 4.1.18 with redhat-linux-gnu
(i686). I have created a InnoDB database consisting of
210 GB ibdata files. I used InnoDB to allocate more
memory and speed up the load. I want use it for
read-only purpose and it works fine with one MySQL
server instance.
I am trying to run
pradhuman jhala wrote:
I use MySQL version 4.1.18 with redhat-linux-gnu
(i686). I have created a InnoDB database consisting of
210 GB ibdata files. I used InnoDB to allocate more
memory and speed up the load. I want use it for
read-only purpose and it works fine with one MySQL
server instance
Recently I deleted ~200.000.000 rows out of a history table. Still there
are 20.000.000 rows in the table.
So now I want to clear some discspace by copying the table, dropping the
old one and renaming the copy afterwards.
Is there another (faster) way to do that and how does one copy such a
Hi Dominic,
Why not just use an OPTIMIZE TABLE ? This will map to an ALTER table
command for an InnoDB table which will free the now unused space. From
the manual at http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/optimize-table.html
For InnoDB tables, OPTIMIZE TABLE is mapped to ALTER TABLE, which
Thank you very much. I did not know this command. Well at least I never
looked up what it does.
I'll give it a try and see how it works out.
Why not just use an OPTIMIZE TABLE ? This will map to an ALTER table
command for an InnoDB table which will free the now unused space. From
Howdy all,
I'm trying to clean up a development server so that we
can retask it. I tried dropping a very large but no
longer necessary database that uses INNODB tables
exclusively. Unfortunately the disk usage on the box
didn't change. We're using a completely default MySQL
5.0.15 install
Hi,
in order to size the innodb buffer cache optimally it would really be
beneficial to see what it is composed of and how much memory each of the
components (also internal structures!) consumes.
Is there any chance to get this information?
Regards,
Frank.
--
Dr. Frank Ullrich, DBA
1101 - 1200 of 5209 matches
Mail list logo
