Hi,
Lets see If I can help.
Overly long queries (transactions
in general) are bad for performance as a lot of unpurged versions
accumulate.
In this sentence, I don't know the meaning about 'unpureged version
accumulate'
When rows are updated new versions are created. They are later
HI Peter:
Thanks for your answer. I have understand your answer. Thank you very
much.
――
Best regards
Timo Seven
blog: http://zauc.wordpress.com
#请翻墙浏览，或者指定hosts到74.200.243.252###
UNIX System Admin
2010/3/23 Peter Zaitsev p...@percona.com
Hi,
Lets see
Hi everyone:
I read the presentation about InnodDB performance optimization what
Heikki Tuuri written in april23 2007.
But now I have some sentences don't know how to understanding. Can you help
me?
Overly long queries (transactions
in general) are bad for performance as a lot of unpurged
Hi Catalin,
Here are some InnoDB performance tuning tips that may boost
your insert speed:
Catalin Trifu wrote:
...
innodb_buffer_pool_size = 256M
Higher is better, in fact pushing this up to 60%-80% on a
dedicated database would be good. If there are other things
running like a web server
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 13:28 -0700, David Griffiths wrote:
David,
Thanks for your suggestions, i'll give them a try.
There are other tuning choices (including the thread-pool-cache). The
best resource is the page on innodb performance tuning, and it can be
found here:
http
Hi,
A few days ago i posted a quaestion about performace, I now have a
little more info, hopefully someone can help.
I have a table, tblShoppingCart with 3 fields,
cartUid (int 11 auto increment)
userUid (int 11, indexed)
strCartHash (varchar 32)
The table is innodb
Nomally my server load
Tony,
You said that you copied the my.cnf file from huge.cnf - not sure what
version you are using (I missed your original post), but the my-huge.cnf
in mysql 4.0.24 is for MyISAM. You should have used
my-innodb-heavy-4G.cnf as the starting point for an InnoDB system. The
my-huge.cnf
Hi David,
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 10:25 -0700, David Griffiths wrote:
Tony,
- not sure what version you are using
4.1.11. Server is a duel xeon machine with 4gb or ram running mysql and
apache webserver and not much else.
You should have used
my-innodb-heavy-4G.cnf as the starting point
+binlog_cache_size) +
max_connections*2MB
You should make sure that stays under 2 gigabytes. If MySQL uses much
more memory, it will crash.
There are other tuning choices (including the thread-pool-cache). The
best resource is the page on innodb performance tuning, and it can be
found here:
http
Hello.
A lot of statistics you could get from 'SHOW INNODB STATUS'.
For example 'FILE I/O', 'INSERT BUFFER AND ADAPTIVE HASH INDEX',
'BUFFER POOL AND MEMORY' could be helpful. See:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/innodb-monitor.html
Manoj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings,
I am using MySQL 4.0.24 and all my tables use InnoDB as default
engine. I was interested in finding out the performance of my Buffer
space. How can i do it?. If I were to use MyISQM tables, I could have
looked at the parameters Key_read_request key_reads to find out the
hit rate
From: David Lloyd
journalling file system. It's not always that clear cut. I've just
switched a number of big customer databases to InnoDB and noone's
noticed any difference - if anything it's going faster.
For small tables (50,000 records) MyISAM is usually a lot faster. However,
MyISAM gets
The MyIsam storage engine is a non transactional engine and InnoDb is a
transactional engine. That is the main difference. So I think the MyIsam
engine should be faster.
what is transactional mean?
-
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try
see this link
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/ansi-diff-transactions.html
Reto
Eko Budiharto wrote:
The MyIsam storage engine is a non transactional engine and InnoDb is a
transactional engine. That is the main difference. So I think the MyIsam
engine should be faster.
what is transactional
Eko and all,
The MyIsam storage engine is a non transactional engine and InnoDb is
a transactional engine. That is the main difference. So I think the
MyIsam engine should be faster.
However, some file systems that have journals are faster than non
journalling file system. It's not always
backs up MyISAM
tables
http://www.innodb.com/order.php
Order MySQL Network from http://www.mysql.com/network/
- Original Message -
From: Marcin Lewandowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: InnoDB Performance
I've
Jocelyn Fournier napisa(a):
Hi,
What about using another forum ?
phpbb2 is well known to be far for what could be called optimized :)
I hate phpbb, but currently we can't change it :(
--
Marcin Lewandowski
[ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] gg:188068 jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[
Hello.
Send the piece of 'SHOW PROCESSLIST', 'SHOW STATUS' output and
corresponding configuration file (after applying all previous advices).
It could provide more information to reflection.
Marcin Lewandowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've got webserver. There, I've got
Hi,
I've got webserver. There, I've got phpbb2 with circa 6000 users
(average 70-100 users online). There was problems with locking or
something else, when phpbb was using myisam tables. Yesterday, we have
converted tables to innodb, because it should be more effective. Since
then we have high
The MyIsam storage engine is a non transactional engine and InnoDb is a
transactional engine. That is the main difference. So I think the MyIsam
engine should be faster.
Try to adjust the innodb_thread_concurrency parameter when you have a
lot of users.
Reto
Marcin Lewandowski wrote:
Hi,
I've
Marcin Lewandowski wrote:
Hi,
I've got webserver. There, I've got phpbb2 with circa 6000 users
(average 70-100 users online). There was problems with locking or
something else, when phpbb was using myisam tables. Yesterday, we have
converted tables to innodb, because it should be more
I've changed settings to:
innodb_data_file_path = ibdata1:128M:autoextend
innodb_buffer_pool_size=150M
innodb_additional_mem_pool_size = 50M
and system load is only 2 to 3.
kernel napisa(a):
What does the cpu % show when the machine has the high load avg ?
Now, there are about 50% of normal load
Gary Richardson napisa(a):
Hey,
How much load is system vs user? I found that when my company
converted some large tables on our old server, the concurrent disk IO
increased. Your database server is doing more in parallel and
accessing more from your disk at one time. That would be my guess.
One
I've got IDE hdd. Is there simple way to check, if it's overloaded?
Would RAID1 help? (I don't know if in raid1 there are parralel reads or
maybe one disk is only a mirror)
If it's IDE, probably not. Moving the database to a different
subsystem would give more IO. You can use iostat to check
Marcin Lewandowski wrote:
Hi,
I've got webserver. There, I've got phpbb2 with circa 6000 users
(average 70-100 users online). There was problems with locking or
something else, when phpbb was using myisam tables. Yesterday, we have
converted tables to innodb, because it should be more
Marcin Lewandowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/08/2005 05:29:39 PM:
Chuck Herrick napisa(a):
200 - 400 tables is too many.
Is it too many for merge, innodb or both?
Try having one CUSTOMERS table. You know who is logged in, so you can
use that information in a WHERE clause.
Yes,
Hi,
I'm writing an windows app, which would connect to mysql server and
modify user's data. There would be a few hundred of users. Every of them
should have access only to few tables. It's not a problem with mysql's
authentication mechanism.
Kind of compilation of the data from users' tables
Chuck Herrick napisa(a):
200 - 400 tables is too many.
Is it too many for merge, innodb or both?
Try having one CUSTOMERS table. You know who is logged in, so you can
use that information in a WHERE clause.
Yes, but If somebody would find a password (maybe using brute-force
attack) to one
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: mailing.database.mysql
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 5:07 AM
Subject: Poor InnoDB Performance
I converted 3 of 30 MyISAM tables to InnoDB. Since
then I have been constantly reaching my limit of 100
connections because Selects on the InnoDB tables are
slow.
If I
Nicholas,
- Original Message -
From: Nicholas Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: mailing.database.mysql
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 6:04 PM
Subject: InnoDB Performance issues
--=_NextPart_000_003B_01C3479C.77A1AB60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=iso-8859-1
Content
Hey all,
I've been experimenting with the best way to store a large (~100GB) of data for
retrieval. Essentially, I'm storing 9 variables for approximately 1,000,000 locations
a day for the last ten years. This can work out at around 4MB a variable a day - but
not all variables are always
In the last episode (Jul 11), Nicholas Elliott said:
I've been experimenting with the best way to store a large (~100GB)
of data for retrieval. Essentially, I'm storing 9 variables for
approximately 1,000,000 locations a day for the last ten years. This
can work out at around 4MB a variable a
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: InnoDB Performance issues
In the last episode (Jul 11), Nicholas Elliott said:
I've been experimenting with the best way to store a large (~100GB)
of data for retrieval. Essentially, I'm storing 9 variables
Hi Nicholas,
How about storing the BLOBS outside of the DB and refering to them ?
Best regards
Nils Valentin
Tokyo/Japan
2003 7 12 00:06Nicholas Elliott :
Hey all,
I've been experimenting with the best way to store a large (~100GB) of data
for retrieval. Essentially, I'm storing 9
In the last episode (Oct 25), Jeff Mathis said:
I'll agree to this somewhat:
(1) always bind your variables. whatever code you are using to do your
inserts, the fewer prepared statements you can make the better.
for example:
insert into TableName (col1, col2, col2, col4) values (?,?,?,?)
sql,query
At 15:50 -0600 10/25/02, Jeff Mathis wrote:
Paul DuBois wrote:
(2) drop all indexes on your table(s). rebuild them after loading (this
alone can give orders of magnitude improvement)
For ISAM or MyISAM, that works. It has no effect for InnoDB.
Do you actually observe a
Mark,
Note that mysql does not support bind variables. If you think
you'reusing them, whatever API you are using is filling them in
beforesending the statement to mysql. Bind variables do solve
quotingproblems, though, so if you use them, know why you're using
them :)
Rumour has it,
At 15:46 -0600 10/25/02, Jeff Mathis wrote:
forgive me.
i was initially using the perl DBI methods to load. I am not intimately
familiar with the inner workings of DBI, but obviously it must be doing
something if you say mysql does not support binding variables
(i am using 4.0.4). This is
David Lloyd wrote:
Mark,
Note that mysql does not support bind variables. If you think
you'reusing them, whatever API you are using is filling them in
beforesending the statement to mysql. Bind variables do solve
quotingproblems, though, so if you use them, know why you're using
them :)
Hi There,
We have currently an Interbase Database with millions and millions of
rows which I would like
to migrate to MySQL if possible to increase the speed.
Transaction support is necessary, so I am using innoDB.
When inserting 160K rows in the database (in an innoDB table) it takes
about
Message -
From: Jeroen Geusebroek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 12:11 PM
Subject: Mysql Innodb performance slow
Hi There,
We have currently an Interbase Database with millions and millions of
rows which I would like
to migrate to MySQL if possible
seconds for inserting 160K rows, while innodb takes 700 seconds. (using
individual inserts)
Thanks,
Jeroen
-Original Message-
From: Jeroen Geusebroek [mailto:j.geusebroek;infraxs.com]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 3:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mysql Innodb performance slow
Message -
From: Jeroen Geusebroek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 12:11 PM
Subject: Mysql Innodb performance slow
Hi There,
We have currently an Interbase Database with millions and millions of
rows which I would like
to migrate to MySQL if possible
Jeroen Geusebroek wrote:
[snip]
You where right, what i did use indivudual inserts. Now I have it
segmented in 1000 rows in one query which massively speeds up the whole
inserting progress. 160K records now takes about 20 seconds instead of
the 100 records ;) I'm really impressed by this massive
forgive me.
i was initially using the perl DBI methods to load. I am not intimately
familiar with the inner workings of DBI, but obviously it must be doing
something if you say mysql does not support binding variables
(i am using 4.0.4). This is significantly faster than creating a new
prepared
Jeff Mathis wrote:
forgive me.
i was initially using the perl DBI methods to load. I am not intimately
familiar with the inner workings of DBI, but obviously it must be doing
something if you say mysql does not support binding variables
(i am using 4.0.4). This is significantly faster than
Jungshu,
- Original Message -
From: Heo, Jungsu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: mailing.database.mysql
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 5:49 AM
Subject: InnoDB Performance Question.
Hello everyone.
I'm working on migrating Oracle to MySQL 4.0.3
MySQL works on Redhat 7.3 and Pentium
Hello everyone.
I'm working on migrating Oracle to MySQL 4.0.3
MySQL works on Redhat 7.3 and Pentium 550Mhz with 256 Mb RAM.
Our application need Transactions, so I decided to use InnoDB.
But, InnoDB is slower than I expected.
-
mysql
Though i would give Innodb another go with the latest mysql-max RPM's (3.23.41) for
linux running on a Redhat machine. This is on a Compaq ML-370, 667Mhz with 1gig mem on
kernel 2.2.19. Disks are Raid-5. Huge performance difference between Innodb and MyISAM
for a simple table create (7 times
49 matches
Mail list logo
