Hi all,
I don't fully understand the importance of doublewrite in InnoDB.
(1) Performance wise.
Performance wise I can understand that, doublewrite can coalesce many
dirty pages into a big buf chunk, and upon flush, first write this big
buf chunk to tablespace + fsync(), then write those
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Johnny Withers joh...@pixelated.net wrote:
Now when i run the same show table status command, the comment field says:
InnoDB free: 6144 kB
Is that telling me that I only have 6MB of storage left even though I
increased the table space by 8GB?
I seem
About the above - it is saying 6144 KB so it is 6.1 GB.
Are you sure? I would think 6144KB = 6.144 MB, or 6144 * 1000 = 6,144,000
bytes.
I think since InnoDB, by default, extends the table space by 8MB increments,
this is reporting the free space in this increment. How can I tell total
it is 6.1 GB.
Are you sure? I would think 6144KB = 6.144 MB, or 6144 * 1000 = 6,144,000
bytes.
I think since InnoDB, by default, extends the table space by 8MB
increments, this is reporting the free space in this increment. How can I
tell total remaining space so I can adjust and/or add new
' on one of the databases and the comment filed said:
InnoDB Free: 3NNN kB (I don't remember the exact number, but know it started
with 3 and had 4 digits.
I modified the configuration line above to:
innodb_data_file_path=ibdata1:1G;ibdata2:1G;ibdata3:1G;ibdata4:1G;ibdata5:1G;ibdata6
Hey john,
Yes you can add it but safe to keep auto-extend at the end and monitor the
disk space as well.
Now when i run the same show table status command, the comment field says:
InnoDB free: 6144 kB
Is that telling me that I only have 6MB of storage left even though I
increased the table
Hi All, I was running slamdb against one of our QA boxes and noticed that the
innodb database is 190Gb in size BUT the worrying issue is that the indexes are
30GB in size!!! When I hit this server hard, it tanks on memory but still
performs, slower of course ;-) Any suggestions on what I
On 7/21/2010 12:16 PM, Nunzio Daveri wrote:
database is around 150GB with over 5,000 tables. To make things worse, if I
shutdown MySQL, top-c still says all the memory is still used? Is this a bug,
why would it say all the memory is used when I turn off MySQL. The weird thing
is that when I
Hello Gurus, I just inhereted a Sun 2 U Server with 2 Intel Quad Core CPU's and
16 GB of ram. Here is the problem. The machine is constantly at 99% Memory
utilization and we get random row locking, we are only using InnoDB. The
database is around 150GB with over 5,000 tables. To make things
Thanks to everybody, and to Rob Wultsch, his link helped me to understand
what I was doing...
./configure select an automake configure or a perl one...
I ended building mysql with innodb,heap,myisam and partitions, statically
built with:
./configure --with-plugins=heap,partition,innobase,myisam
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Andrés Tello mr.crip...@gmail.com wrote:
Who you build mysql 5.5.3 with innodb suport?
I made
sh configure.am --with-plugins=all
I see the makefile at innodb subdir being created.
I build the system correctly but when I log in to the mysql 5 instance and
do
Who you build mysql 5.5.3 with innodb suport?
I made
sh configure.am --with-plugins=all
I see the makefile at innodb subdir being created.
I build the system correctly but when I log in to the mysql 5 instance and
do a
show engines;
I only have
Hi , i am running into trouble due to wrong index chosen by mysql in some
particular type of queries . This is happening in a critical production
environment where we have deployment in two different colocations . I am
seeing that a paticular query is using one index in one set of hosts
another
optimize / analyze table in each of the hosts is not a good option for me ,
this is an in-production set-up with minimal number of boxes in rotation .
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 5:57 PM, arijit bhattacharyya
new2mys...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi , i am running into trouble due to wrong index chosen by
You you send us explain of that query.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 6:31 PM, arijit bhattacharyya
new2mys...@gmail.comwrote:
optimize / analyze table in each of the hosts is not a good option for me ,
this is an in-production set-up with minimal number of boxes in rotation .
On Sun, Jul 11,
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Leonardo Leonardo new2mys...@gmail.comwrote:
Here is the structure of the Table T1 ( ENGINE=InnoDB ) -
`c1` varchar(128) NOT NULL default '',
`c2` int(11) NOT NULL default '0',
`c3` varchar(32) NOT NULL default '',
`c4` blob,
`c5` double default
In the last episode (Jul 11), Leonardo Leonardo said:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Leonardo Leonardo
new2mys...@gmail.comwrote:
Here is the structure of the Table T1 ( ENGINE=InnoDB ) -
`c1` varchar(128) NOT NULL default '',
`c2` int(11) NOT NULL default '0',
`c3` varchar(32
James, all,
James Corteciano wrote:
Hi All,
I have received error message ERROR 1030 (HY000) at line 167: Got error 139
from storage engine when importing dump database to MySQL server. The MySQL
server is using InnoDB. I have google it and it's something problem on
exceeding
a row
Hi Joerg,
Thanks for your reply.
I found out that this error was limitation row length of 8000 bytes on
InnoDB. I have check the dump sql file and one particular table is causing
error 139.
What I did is just to use MyISAM engine rather than InnoDB for a specific
table only.
BTW, the machine
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 8:35 PM, James Corteciano ja...@linux-source.org wrote:
Hi All,
I have received error message ERROR 1030 (HY000) at line 167: Got error 139
from storage engine when importing dump database to MySQL server. The MySQL
server is using InnoDB. I have google it and it's
from storage engine when importing dump database to MySQL server. The
MySQL
server is using InnoDB. I have google it and it's something problem on
exceeding
a row-length limit in the InnoDB table.
Any have idea how to fix this?
Thanks.
Regards,
James
I can not recall
server. The MySQL
server is using InnoDB. I have google it and it's something problem on
exceeding
a row-length limit in the InnoDB table.
Any have idea how to fix this?
Thanks.
Regards,
James
I can not recall having seen that error before. I did a slight amount
of googling
Hi All,
I have received error message ERROR 1030 (HY000) at line 167: Got error 139
from storage engine when importing dump database to MySQL server. The MySQL
server is using InnoDB. I have google it and it's something problem on
exceeding
a row-length limit in the InnoDB table.
Any have idea
Machiel,
I'm going to disagree strongly with the previous advice you got. You
should NOT configure the buffer pool to be larger than the amount of
RAM you have. If part of the buffer pool is swapped out, then
swapping it back in is MUCH worse than re-fetching the page. InnoDB
doesn't know
In infinite wisdom Machiel Richards machi...@rdc.co.za wrote:
The current Innodb buffer pool size is at 4Gb for instance, and the
innodb tables then grow to be about 8Gb in size.
InnoDB manages the pool as a list, using a least recently used (LRU) algorithm
incorporating a midpoint
Hi Guys
I just have a quick question.
I have done some research into how to determine the size of your Innodb
buffer pool.
All of the sources I used, specified that the Innodb buffer pool size
should be the same size as your database + 10%.
However, as far as I
which is not very
good either. But giving only 4 GB to Innodb is even worse for the performance.
It is subjective though. You should first check if MySQL is actually using the
allotted 4GB or not. If not, increasing the value will not help.
Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong. :-)
Hope
said
that, in this case increasing buffer pool size is still advisable as per my
understanding. Your swap consumption will go up in that case which is not
very good either. But giving only 4 GB to Innodb is even worse for the
performance. It is subjective though. You should first check
Hello, I'm currently writing a python program that scans some web directories
and then stores some information in a local database. I'm playing with using
InnoDB for this application as a test bed for using InnoDB in further
applications, but I'm running into a couple issues.
When I try
MyISAM does not support transactions so it is inherently in
'autocommit mode' all the time. You will run into this with any
transactional database, be it InnoDB, Falcon, or Oracle and DB2
installations for that matter.
For many classes of application, avoiding autocommit and explicitly
creating
Thanks for the clarification.
Michael
On May 17, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Michael Dykman wrote:
MyISAM does not support transactions so it is inherently in
'autocommit mode' all the time. You will run into this with any
transactional database, be it InnoDB, Falcon, or Oracle and DB2
Hi,
I have the problem that i have to backup several databases who include a mix of
InnoDB- and MyISAM-tables.
I'd like to use mysqldump. The manpage proposes different options for MyISAM-
and InnoDB-tables. What is about --single-transaction ? --single-transaction is
recommend for InnoDB
Hey you all,
I'm messing about with various settings and parsing the documentation, and
my naughty mind saw something that's not very clear in the docs:
The InnoDB autoincrement
dochttp://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/innodb-auto-increment-handling.htmlstates
that innodb_autoinc_lock_mode
= 2
It might also be done by keeping a last-revision table. Then you'd only
select 1 record from that, and up the number.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Chris W 4rfv...@cox.net wrote:
Johan De Meersman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Carsten Pedersen cars...@bitbybit.dk
wrote:
I have a InnoDB table which contains columns named 'cluster' and 'file'
('cluster' + 'file' is a primary key). I want to add a new column that
tracks the revision number of a file for a given cluster and a file. The
situation is tailor made for a MyIsam table where I can add a new Auto
You can't, iirc - if you add an autoincrement to InnoDB it MUST be the
primary key.
You *can*, however, add that, set it as PK and stick a unique index on
(cluster, file) instead. Behaviour will be identical, but be aware that
there will be some performance implications - you will now have to do
in a transaction
to ensure atomic updates to the 'rev' number for a given cluster and
file combination. Any thoughts?
Thanks
Aveek
Johan De Meersman wrote:
You can't, iirc - if you add an autoincrement to InnoDB it MUST be the
primary key.
You *can*, however, add that, set it as PK and stick a unique
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Aveek Misra ave...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
I am not sure I understand. If I make the autoincrement column as part of
the primary key as (rev + cluster + file), how do I ensure that a reset of
the revision number is done as soon as (cluster + file) combination
://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/example-auto-increment.html. This
is exactly what I want, however I have an InnoDB table so this will not
work (in an InnoDB table, you cannot specify autoincrement on a
secondary column). So what I wanted to know was if there is some easy
way to mimic that behavior
Kudos for managing to drag up such an obscure piece of functionality :-) I
can see where it would be useful, though.
As to your question, though: given that that page indicates that it will
reuse deleted sequence numbers, I think your best bet would be select @id :=
count(*)+1 from table where
How can count(*) in an InnoDB table be faster than MAX() considering
that the former needs to do a table scan and the latter can use an index
if correctly used? My code starts the sequence from 1.
Thanks
Aveek
Johan De Meersman wrote:
Kudos for managing to drag up such an obscure piece
The count happens after the where on an index - it should just count the
appropriate index rows without looking at the values. Worth benchmarking on
your dataset, though.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Aveek Misra ave...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
How can count(*) in an InnoDB table be faster than
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:12:16 +0200, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.be
wrote:
Kudos for managing to drag up such an obscure piece of functionality :-)
I
can see where it would be useful, though.
As to your question, though: given that that page indicates that it will
reuse deleted
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Carsten Pedersen cars...@bitbybit.dkwrote:
Wouldn't that strategy cause problems if one or more rows have been
deleted in the meantime? (i.e. sequence numbers 1-4 have been created, row
2 has been deleted - new sequence number would be 4).
Yeps. I'm none too
At 12:03 AM 4/22/2010, Aveek Misra wrote:
I have a InnoDB table which contains columns named 'cluster' and 'file'
('cluster' + 'file' is a primary key). I want to add a new column that
tracks the revision number of a file for a given cluster and a file. The
situation is tailor made
= mysql_query($query) or die(DB error $query .
mysql_error() );
}
This was running very slow and I was getting only about 50 inserts per
second. I noticed that the table was InnoDB so I decided to change it
to MyISAM and try again. With MyISAM I was getting around 10,000
inserts per second
Johan De Meersman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Carsten Pedersen cars...@bitbybit.dkwrote:
Wouldn't that strategy cause problems if one or more rows have been
deleted in the meantime? (i.e. sequence numbers 1-4 have been created, row
2 has been deleted - new sequence number would
= mysql_query($query) or die(DB error $query . mysql_error()
);
}
This was running very slow and I was getting only about 50 inserts per
second. I noticed that the table was InnoDB so I decided to change it to
MyISAM and try again. With MyISAM I was getting around 10,000 inserts per
second
;
$query .= WHERE `CallSign` = '$CallSign' \n;
$Uresult = mysql_query($query) or die(DB error $query . mysql_error() );
}
This was running very slow and I was getting only about 50 inserts per
second. I noticed that the table was InnoDB so I decided to change it to
MyISAM and try again
I want to change the mysql default storage engine from MyISAM to InnoDB.
What are the steps involved .Is it edit my.cnf file and add a line
default-storage-engine=innodb and restart the mysql server? How I can bring
my databases with mixed storage engine down without any data loss. What
steps I
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Angelina Paul arshup...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to change the mysql default storage engine from MyISAM to InnoDB.
What are the steps involved .Is it edit my.cnf file and add a line
default-storage-engine=innodb and restart the mysql server?
If you do not want
You need to locate the mySQL config file (helpfully named) my.cnf file. On
linux it is located at /etc/my.cnf
Then under the [mysqld] add the following line as shown below!
*[mysqld]
default-storage_engine = InnoDB*
And don't forget to restart mysql. After this whenever you create a table
its
--
[--] Skipped version check for MySQLTuner script
[OK] Currently running supported MySQL version 5.4.3-beta-community
[OK] Operating on 64-bit architecture
Storage Engine Statistics
---
[--] Status: -Archive -BDB -Federated +InnoDB -ISAM
supported MySQL version 5.4.3-beta-community
[OK] Operating on 64-bit architecture
Storage Engine Statistics ---
[--] Status: -Archive -BDB -Federated +InnoDB -ISAM -NDBCluster
[--] Data in MyISAM tables: 458M (Tables: 349)
[--] Data in InnoDB tables
--
[--] Skipped version check for MySQLTuner script
[OK] Currently running supported MySQL version 5.4.3-beta-community
[OK] Operating on 64-bit architecture
Storage Engine Statistics ---
[--] Status: -Archive -BDB -Federated +InnoDB -ISAM
Kyong,
Thanks for the feedback on InnoDb. I will tinker with it when I have
more time. I wonder if MySQL will ever release an alternative to Innodb
like Falcon or whether Falcon is dead as a dodo? :-)
Mike
At 11:07 PM 4/8/2010, Kyong Kim wrote:
We've seen good results throwing more
Which one is more suitable for developing an ERP Application ? MyISAM or InnoDB
?
Are there other tools to backup MySQL Database than Standard GUI Tools which
MySQL provide in the website ? So far, I use this GUI tools and setup an
automatic backup on 9AM everyday. Is this backup tools
At 09:10 PM 4/7/2010, you wrote:
Also depends on your data access pattern as well.
If you can take advantage of clustering my primary key for your
selects, then InnoDB could do it for you.
My suggestion would be to write some queries based on projected
workload, build 2 tables with lots and lots
We've seen good results throwing more RAM to the buffer pool.
It is true that InnoDB data never gets accessed directly on disk.
The only downside I know of with a larger buffer pool is slower restarts.
The load speed depends on the order of the inserts.
Random inserts or updates to primary key
Also depends on your data access pattern as well.
If you can take advantage of clustering my primary key for your
selects, then InnoDB could do it for you.
My suggestion would be to write some queries based on projected
workload, build 2 tables with lots and lots of data, and do some
isolated
From: Gavin Towey gto...@ffn.com
InnoDB should be your default for all tables, unless you have
specific requirements that need myisam. One specific example of an
appropriate task for myisam is where you need very high insert
throughput, and you're not doing any updates/deletes
Also depends on your data access pattern as well.
If you can take advantage of clustering my primary key for your
selects, then InnoDB could do it for you.
My suggestion would be to write some queries based on projected
workload, build 2 tables with lots and lots of data, and do some
isolated
I'm going to be setting up a MySQL database for a project. My reading
indicates that MyISAM (default) is going to be better than InnoDB for
the project but I want to be sure I have the trade-offs right.
This is going to be a very large data file -- many gigabytes -- only
used internally
InnoDB won't give you much in terms of disk crash recovery. That's what
backups are for.
Where InnoDB does excel is if your database server dies while updating
rows. If that happens, your database will come back up with sane data.
For both table types, once the data has been flushed to disk
I disagree. There's nothing about his requirements that sounds like MyIsam is
a better solution. InnoDB should be your default for all tables, unless you
have specific requirements that need myisam. One specific example of an
appropriate task for myisam is where you need very high insert
In the last episode (Apr 02), Gavin Towey said:
I disagree. There's nothing about his requirements that sounds like
MyIsam is a better solution. InnoDB should be your default for all
tables, unless you have specific requirements that need myisam. One
specific example of an appropriate task
You want the crash safety and data integrity that comes with InnoDB. Even
more so as your dataset grows. It's performance is far better than myisam
tables for most OLTP users, and as your number of concurrent readers and
writers grows, the improvement in performance from using innodb over
Heck
Engineer @ Open Query (http://openquery.com)
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 08:50, Mitchell Maltenfort mmal...@gmail.com wrote:
You want the crash safety and data integrity that comes with InnoDB. Even
more so as your dataset grows. It's performance is far better than myisam
tables for most OLTP
that comes with InnoDB. Even
more so as your dataset grows. It's performance is far better than myisam
tables for most OLTP users, and as your number of concurrent readers and
writers grows, the improvement in performance from using innodb over
myisam becomes more pronounced.
His scenario
I've noticed that Innodb seems to exhibit true serializability for the
serializable transaction isolation level. Does this mean it implements
predicate locking? Also out of curiosity, is it possible to set a
snapshot isolation transaction isolation level (is Innodb implemented
using MVCC)? Thanks
Hi Yang,
On Mar 26, 2010, at 4:28 PM, Yang Zhang wrote:
I've noticed that Innodb seems to exhibit true serializability for the
serializable transaction isolation level. Does this mean it implements
predicate locking?
Kinda, but not exactly. In serializable, all reads will use shared
locks
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
. The only way to get good perfomance again is
deleting all innodb files (ibdata, iblog files) and restoring the DB
again.
The DBs are relative small about 70M rows and 10Gb size. I can repeat
this
behavior all the time just running 2 restores of the same database.
Another example when its
Hi list,
Im having problems with bulk writes (restores from mysqldumps, alters,
delete in (select ...)) with innodb. The servers are at amazon EC2 instances
w/ 15G ram and raid0 4disks EBS.
The problem starts when I run bulk writes like an alter table or a restore
from mysqldump, its starts
when the writes are happening, please run show full processlist and let us
know the out put.
regards
anandkl
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Max Bube maxb...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi list,
Im having problems with bulk writes (restores from mysqldumps, alters,
delete in (select ...)) with innodb
, alters,
delete in (select ...)) with innodb. The servers are at amazon EC2
instances
w/ 15G ram and raid0 4disks EBS.
The problem starts when I run bulk writes like an alter table or a restore
from mysqldump, its starts processing more than 5 rows/s but suddenly
the ratio goes down to 100 rows
. The only way to get good perfomance again is
deleting all innodb files (ibdata, iblog files) and restoring the DB again.
The DBs are relative small about 70M rows and 10Gb size. I can repeat this
behavior all the time just running 2 restores of the same database.
Another example when its stucked
processing more than 5 rows/s but suddenly
the ratio goes down to 100 rows /sec. and then its stucked at this ratio
even if I restart MySQL. The only way to get good perfomance again is
deleting all innodb files (ibdata, iblog files) and restoring the DB
again.
The DBs are relative
Hi All,
Innodb status information is getting logged on to my mysql error log file
for every 15 seconds, can someone help in disabling it ?
Thanks
Anand
anand
Do you use innodb engine at all further
-D
-Original Message-
From: sanan...@gmail.com [mailto:sanan...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Anand
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:00 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Disable innodb status info in err log
Hi All,
Innodb status
Greetings.
Try with the variable innodb_status_file.
I wont get logged in mysqlerr.log file.
On 17 March 2010 15:15, Shanmugam, Dhandapani
dhandapani.shanmu...@eds.comwrote:
anand
Do you use innodb engine at all further
-D
-Original Message-
From: sanan...@gmail.com
you are right sir , the variables innodb_status_file will write the show
innodb status information on to the file innodb_status.PID ... however for
me the innodb status is logging into the default error log file... i dont
have any clue on how to stop it from writing...
Any help would
On 17/03/2010, at 9:10 PM, Anand kumar wrote:
you are right sir , the variables innodb_status_file will write the
show
innodb status information on to the file innodb_status.PID ...
however for
me the innodb status is logging into the default error log file...
i dont
have any clue on how
are right sir , the variables innodb_status_file will write the show
innodb status information on to the file innodb_status.PID ... however
for
me the innodb status is logging into the default error log file... i dont
have any clue on how to stop it from writing...
Any help would be appreciated
Hi all
Maybe someone can assist me with this one.
A while back I requested some information relating to the
MySQL innodb buffer pool size that seems to fill up rather frequently.
The buffer pool is currently set to 3Gb , and it takes about
2
Hi Machiel,
What do you mean with innodb buffer pool is at 100% full ?
There are several status variables associated with innodb buffer pool ie:
Innodb_buffer_pool_pages_free is the number of unused data pages.
Innodb_buffer_pool_pages_total is the total number of pages
HI Carlos
We run a script for the monitoring and the output received is as
follows:
InnoDB Buffer Pool __
Usage 3.00G of 3.00G %Used: 100.00
Read hit 100.00%
Pages
Free 0%Total: 0.00
Data
Hi Carlos (and all)
I had a look at the script that we use an the following is the
calculations that is used to calculate the innodb buffer usage.
Machiel
-Original Message-
From: Carlos Proal [mailto:carlos.pr...@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 March 2010 9:31 AM
To: mysql
There will be an increase in IO and a noticeable decrease in performance if
the buffer pool is too small. Give it all the memory which is not needed
elsewhere. If you can set it a little larger than the size of all your
innodb tablespaces that would be good.
Oracle is a very different animal
Hi,
I noticed that over the months the dump of my databases (very
subject to modifications, but not subject to increase significantly in
size) gets progressively slower: from ~8 minutes to almost 15 in 6
months.
How can I avoid this degeneration?
Thanks,
Nico
--
MySQL General
OPTIMIZE TABLE sometimes helps, ymmv.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/optimize-table.html
/ Carsten
Nico Sabbi skrev:
Hi,
I noticed that over the months the dump of my databases (very
subject to modifications, but not subject to increase significantly in
size) gets progressively
Hi,
I tried to remove foreign key constraint in innodb table.
I tried with different ways; but i am unable to drop the constraints.
http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/113053
It says that, droping the foreign key constraint it is not possible in innodb
engine.
Is it so? or any other possibilities
Yes - you can drop a foreign key constraint, use the 'alter table ... drop
foreign key ...' command. If you get an error message, post the error
message.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Vikram A vikkiatb...@yahoo.in wrote:
Hi,
I tried to remove foreign key constraint in innodb table.
I
An example how to delete a foreign key from an InnoDB table:
test CREATE TABLE table_1 (id int unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment
PRIMARY KEY) ENGINE=InnoDB;
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.56 sec)
test CREATE TABLE table_2 (table1_id int unsigned NOT NULL, FOREIGN
KEY (table1_id) REFERENCES
I'm getting Incorrect key file for table 'stock'; try to repair it
for alter table stock add constraint pk_stock primary key (s_w_id,
s_i_id);. I can't do repair table on this since it's an innodb
table. Googling doesn't turn up any clear answers. Any way to recover
from this, or is mysqldump
'stock'; try to repair it
for alter table stock add constraint pk_stock primary key (s_w_id,
s_i_id);. I can't do repair table on this since it's an innodb
table. Googling doesn't turn up any clear answers. Any way to recover
from this, or is mysqldump + load data the way to go?
--
Yang Zhang
Hi,
What is the basic functionality of the MyISAM, InnoDB etc ?
Vikram A
The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
http://in.yahoo.com/
What is the basic functionality of the MyISAM, InnoDB etc ?
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/storage-engines.html
With regards,
Martijn Tonies
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
Download Database Workbench for Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase SQL
Anywhere, MySQL, InterBase
401 - 500 of 5209 matches
Mail list logo
