- Original Message -
> From: "Shawn Green" <shawn.l.gr...@oracle.com>
> Subject: Re: Query optimizer-miss with unqualified expressions, bug or
> feature?
>
> On a more serious note, indexes with limited cardinality are less useful
> than those with
;
This will return the same results, but not use key 'a':
SELECT * FROM t WHERE a;
Is this a bug, or deliberate behaviour, or a missing feature, or perhaps
something else?
Thanks,
Ben Clewett.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe
InnoDB;
This will hit key 'a':
SELECT * FROM t WHERE a = TRUE;
This will return the same results, but not use key 'a':
SELECT * FROM t WHERE a;
Is this a bug, or deliberate behaviour, or a missing feature, or perhaps
something else?
MySQL does not have a true boolean type, so this is ac
;
This will hit key 'a':
SELECT * FROM t WHERE a = TRUE;
This will return the same results, but not use key 'a':
SELECT * FROM t WHERE a;
Is this a bug, or deliberate behaviour, or a missing feature, or perhaps
something else?
MySQL does not have a true boolean type, so this is actually interpreted
Hi Shawn,
On 19.10.15 22.33, shawn l.green wrote:
On 10/19/2015 3:48 PM, Roy Lyseng wrote:
Hi Ben,
On 19.10.15 16.07, Ben Clewett wrote:
Hi Roy,
Thanks for the clear explanation.
I guess (hypothetically) the optimizer could see if it has a key, and
then use
two starts: one on 'a > 0' and
On 10/19/2015 3:48 PM, Roy Lyseng wrote:
Hi Ben,
On 19.10.15 16.07, Ben Clewett wrote:
Hi Roy,
Thanks for the clear explanation.
I guess (hypothetically) the optimizer could see if it has a key, and
then use
two starts: one on 'a > 0' and one on 'a < 0', taking a union of the
result?
Which
ey 'a':
SELECT * FROM t WHERE a = TRUE;
This will return the same results, but not use key 'a':
SELECT * FROM t WHERE a;
Is this a bug, or deliberate behaviour, or a missing feature, or perhaps
something else?
MySQL does not have a true boolean type, so this is actually interpreted as
SELECT
noticed, however, that the LIMIT statement I specified in the event wasn't
present in the actual queries... Could that be a parser bug, or does the limit
simply not show up in the process lists? Has anyone seen this before ?
This is 5.5.30-1.1-log on Debian 64-bit.
Thanks,
Johan
mysql show
wrong ...
question is whether this is a corrupted tree or actually a bzr bug ...
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe, Principal Support Engineer (EMEA)
SkySQL - The MariaDB Company | http://www.skysql.com/
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http
2014/01/29 16:16 -0800, neubyr
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/replication-features-load.html -
Someone was not all awake when making this webpage up: four of the links under
Table of Contents point to this same page.
(I was looking because I was thinking about Neubyr s problem, but I
] Error 2
Question, does anyone at oracle even bother with bug tracking now days?
How can something that causes a fail of building with versions of
openssl less then 1.0.0
go un fixed for so long.
Is this more proof that oracle DGAF about mysql? should I move to mariadb?
because if we have
undeclared identifier
is reported only once
/tmp/mysql-5.5.32/vio/viossl.c:175: error: for each function it appears
in.)
make[2]: *** [vio/CMakeFiles/vio.dir/viossl.c.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [vio/CMakeFiles/vio.dir/all] Error 2
Question, does anyone at oracle even bother with bug tracking now days
/all] Error 2
Question, does anyone at oracle even bother with bug tracking now days?
How can something that causes a fail of building with versions of
openssl less then 1.0.0
go un fixed for so long.
Is this more proof that oracle DGAF about mysql? should I move to mariadb?
because if we have
AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Bug in BETWEEN same DATETIME
2013/05/24 09:49 -0400, shawn green
Or we could coerce datetime values back to their date values when both
are being used. The trick now becomes choosing between rounding the
datetime value (times past noon round
Hello Rick,
On 5/23/2013 7:08 PM, Rick James wrote:
Watch out for CAST(), DATE(), and any other function. In a WHERE clause, if
you hide an indexed column inside a function, the index cannot be used for
optimization.
INDEX(datetime_col)
...
WHERE DATE(datetime_col) = '2013-01-01'
it the midnight bug.)
I perceive (rightly or wrongly) that comparing a TIMESTAMP to something first
converts the TIMESTAMP value to a string ('2013-...'). Shawn, perhaps this
statement belongs as part of the 'algorithm' explanation?
Yes, you might get in trouble if the same SELECT were run in two
' = '2013-01-01'
AND '2013-05-14 17:00:00' = '2013-05-14' + INTERVAL 12 HOUR
There's an extra second in that! (I call it the midnight bug.)
It includes the extra second only because your second comparison is
using = and not just
I perceive (rightly or wrongly) that comparing a TIMESTAMP
2013/05/24 09:49 -0400, shawn green
Or we could coerce datetime values back to their date values when both are
being used. The trick now becomes choosing between rounding the datetime value
(times past noon round to the next date) or do we use the floor() function all
the time.
This is
Sorry, that was meant to be;
WHERE (new column stored as date) = '2013-04-16'
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Andrew Moore eroomy...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I don't share your view that it's a bug. Omitting the time
results in midnight by default so this screws between because there's
.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dykman [mailto:mdyk...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:56 PM
To: MySql
Subject: Re: Bug in BETWEEN same DATETIME
where cast(transaction_date as date) BETWEEN '2013-04-16' AND
This approach might be problematic in that it requires
[mailto:shawn.l.gr...@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:50 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Bug in BETWEEN same DATETIME
On 5/23/2013 4:55 PM, Daevid Vincent wrote:
I just noticed what I consider to be a bug; and related, has this
been
fixed in later versions of MySQL
On 5/23/2013 4:55 PM, Daevid Vincent wrote:
I just noticed what I consider to be a bug; and related, has this been fixed
in later versions of MySQL?
We are using:
mysql Ver 14.12 Distrib 5.0.92, for portbld-freebsd8.1 (amd64) using 5.2
If you use BETWEEN and the same date for both parts
-Original Message-
From: Daevid Vincent [mailto:dae...@daevid.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:56 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Bug in BETWEEN same DATETIME
I just noticed what I consider to be a bug; and related, has this been
fixed
in later versions of MySQL?
We are using
, 2013 3:56 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Bug in BETWEEN same DATETIME
I just noticed what I consider to be a bug; and related, has this been
fixed
in later versions of MySQL?
We are using:
mysql Ver 14.12 Distrib 5.0.92, for portbld-freebsd8.1 (amd64) using
5.2
If you use BETWEEN
Personally I don't share your view that it's a bug. Omitting the time
results in midnight by default so this screws between because there's no
time between 00:00:00 and 00:00:00.
Are you having operational issues here or are you simply fishing for bugs?
WHERE `transaction_date` = DATE(datetime
2012/10/08 14:52 -0700, Rick James
Do not use + for DATE arithmetic!
Use, for example
+ INTERVAL 1 YEAR
No, those operations are well defined. Amongst the timestamp-functions there is
constant reference to numeric context, and character context--and well there
is, because there are no
Do not use + for DATE arithmetic!
Use, for example
+ INTERVAL 1 YEAR
-Original Message-
From: h...@tbbs.net [mailto:h...@tbbs.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:35 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: date-IFNULL-sum bug?
Can anyone explain this to me?
The first one
Can anyone explain this to me?
The first one seems quite wrong; the rest make perfect sense.
mysql select ifnull(date('1900/5/3'), date('1900/01/01')) + 1;
+--+
| ifnull(date('1900/5/3'), date('1900/01/01')) + 1 |
Dear MySQL users,
This is the list of bug fixes. For the functional enhancements, see part
1 of this mail:
Bugs fixed:
* Incompatible Change: For socket I/O, an optimization for the
case when the server used alarms for timeouts could cause a
slowdown when socket timeouts were used
Hi,
On 28-8-2011 4:08, shawn wilson wrote:
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 17:33, Arthur Fullerfuller.art...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree 110%. It is completely pointless to index a column with that amount
of NULLs. In practical fact I would go further: what is the point of a
NULLable column?
A NULL
Hi,
On 27-8-2011 1:28, Dave Dyer wrote:
Can you post the EXPLAIN EXTENDED output for your before and after queries?
also, have you recently run an ANALYZE TABLE on the tables?
What was the result of ANALYZE TABLE?
What is the engine of the tables involved?
// before
Used keys:
p2.NULL,
The innocuous change was to add an index for is_robot which is true
for 6 out of 20,000 records and null for the rest.
My complaint/question/observation is not how to optimize the query
that went awry, but to be alarmed that a venerable and perfectly
serviceable query, written years ago and
Hi,
On 27-8-2011 22:52, Dave Dyer wrote:
The innocuous change was to add an index for is_robot which is true
for 6 out of 20,000 records and null for the rest.
Not useful to add an index for that. I also wonder why the value is null
(meaning: unknown, not certain) for almost all records.
I agree 110%. It is completely pointless to index a column with that amount
of NULLs. In practical fact I would go further: what is the point of a
NULLable column? I try to design my tables such that every column is NOT
NULL. In practice this is not realistic, but I try to adhere to this
principle
It is a general rule that indexes for columns with low cardinality are not
worth it, often making queries more expensive than they would be without
said index. binary columns all suffer from this.
- michael dykman
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Dave Dyer ddyer-my...@real-me.net wrote:
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 17:33, Arthur Fuller fuller.art...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree 110%. It is completely pointless to index a column with that amount
of NULLs. In practical fact I would go further: what is the point of a
NULLable column? I try to design my tables such that every column is NOT
This is a cautionary tale - adding indexes is not always helpful or harmless.
I recently added an index to the players table to optimize a common query,
and as a consequence this other query flipped from innocuous to something that
takes infinite time.
select
In the last episode (Aug 26), Dave Dyer said:
This is a cautionary tale - adding indexes is not always helpful or
harmless. I recently added an index to the players table to optimize a
common query, and as a consequence this other query flipped from innocuous
to something that takes infinite
Can you post the EXPLAIN EXTENDED output for your before and after queries?
also, have you recently run an ANALYZE TABLE on the tables?
// before
mysql explain extended select
p1.player_name,g.score1,g.time1,g.color1,p2.player_name,g.score2,g.time2,g.color2,g.gamename,gmtdate
- from
BTW, the query on the database with the added index doesn't take
forever, it takes a mere 51 minutes (vs. instantaneous).
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
BTW, the query on the database with the added index doesn't take
forever, it takes a mere 51 minutes (vs. instantaneous).
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
Hi,
I have the following query which is fine when I run it from the mysql shell
screen:
select supplier_code,0,0,0,0,0-sum(amountpaid),0 from custpayments where
paymentdate='2010-12-02' and grnno not in (Select sale_id from saletrans_cons
where paymode='Credit') group by supplier_code
but
What's your vb code for outputting the results look like?
On Jul 24, 2011 8:22 AM, Velen Vydelingum ve...@biz-mu.com wrote:
Hi,
I have the following query which is fine when I run it from the mysql shell
screen:
select supplier_code,0,0,0,0,0-sum(amountpaid),0 from custpayments where
-
From: Johnny Withers joh...@pixelated.net
To: Velen Vydelingum ve...@biz-mu.com
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 17:41
Subject: Re: Query bug
What's your vb code for outputting the results look like?
On Jul 24, 2011 8:22 AM, Velen Vydelingum ve...@biz-mu.com wrote:
Hi
Sveta Smirnova at Mysql just confirmed this bug in 5.5.13:
http://bugs.mysql.com/45670
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Claudio Nanni claudio.na...@gmail.comwrote:
No worries!
I think I would have figured that out!
I'll feedback you tomorrow.
Thanks again
Claudio
2011/6/15 Hank hes
Very interesting. Waiting for update.
On Jun 15, 2011 4:51 AM, Hank hes...@gmail.com wrote:
The slave is receiving null as the statement based insert, not an out of
range number from the master.
I've been doing more research all day on this bug and have a bit more
information as to what's
This is a follow-up to my previous post. I have been narrowing down what is
causing this bug. It is a timing issue of a replication ignored table with
an auto-increment primary key values leaking over into a non-ignored table
with inserts immediately after the ignore table has had rows inserted
Two additional notes:
1. Using the replicate-wild-ignore-table option in my.cnf produces the
same results.
2. If the my.cnf replicate-ignore-table=db.log setting on the master is
removed and mysql restarted so db.log is no longer ignored in replication,
this bug goes away and correct results
the
same results.
2. If the my.cnf replicate-ignore-table=db.log setting on the master is
removed and mysql restarted so db.log is no longer ignored in
replication,
this bug goes away and correct results are reported on the slave.
-Hank Eskin
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Hank hes
-table option in my.cnf produces the
same results.
2. If the my.cnf replicate-ignore-table=db.log setting on the master
is
removed and mysql restarted so db.log is no longer ignored in
replication,
this bug goes away and correct results are reported on the slave.
-Hank Eskin
On Wed, Jun
is
removed and mysql restarted so db.log is no longer ignored in
replication,
this bug goes away and correct results are reported on the slave.
-Hank Eskin
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Hank hes...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a follow-up to my previous post. I have been narrowing
You should also have a look at the slave relay log.
But in any case sounds like a bug.
Claudio
On Jun 14, 2011 5:18 AM, Hank hes...@gmail.com wrote:
Both my master and slave bin logs look OK (I think)..
master bin log:
/*!40019 SET @@session.max_insert_delayed_threads=0*/;
/*!50003 SET
That is the slave relay log dump I posted (and mis-labeled). Thanks.
-Hank
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:34 AM, Claudio Nanni claudio.na...@gmail.comwrote:
You should also have a look at the slave relay log.
But in any case sounds like a bug.
Claudio
On Jun 14, 2011 5:18 AM, Hank hes
2011/06/13 22:38 -0400, Hank
But that bug report was closed two years ago. I have no idea if it's the
server sending bad data or the slaves. I think it's the slaves, because on
the slave error, it clearly is getting this statement: insert into test
values (1,null) to replicate, but when
The slave is receiving null as the statement based insert, not an out of
range number from the master.
I've been doing more research all day on this bug and have a bit more
information as to what's causing it. I plan to write it up tomorrow and
post it.
Basically, everything works perfectly
Unfortunately the decision to run 32-bit libs on 64-bit systems is outside
of my control. Given that it *should* work I'm more interested in
diagnosing whether this is a bug of some sort in libmysqlclient or a bug in
my code/build procedure.
Alex
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:06 AM, walter harms
Am 13.06.2011 18:45, schrieb Alex Gaynor:
Unfortunately the decision to run 32-bit libs on 64-bit systems is outside
of my control. Given that it *should* work I'm more interested in
diagnosing whether this is a bug of some sort in libmysqlclient or a bug in
my code/build procedure.
You
Hello All,
I have a 64bit, 5.5.8 master, and this bug appears on both 5.5.11 and 5.5.8
32 and 64-bit slaves (statement based replication).
I'm finding an auto-increment field (part of a compound primary key) updates
correctly using null to insert the next value on the master.. but when
Hank,
I can't reproduce it right now,
But it really seems a bug.
Just a shot in the dark, Are you sure you have statement based and not mixed
replication?
I don't even know if that would affect , just an idea.
Claudio
On Jun 14, 2011 3:07 AM, Hank hes...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello All,
I have
Yes, it's basic out-of-the box mysql replication.
This appears to be an instance of this bug:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=45670
But that bug report was closed two years ago. I have no idea if it's the
server sending bad data or the slaves. I think it's the slaves, because on
the slave
, it's basic out-of-the box mysql replication.
This appears to be an instance of this bug:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=45670
But that bug report was closed two years ago. I have no idea if it's the
server sending bad data or the slaves. I think it's the slaves, because on
the slave error
I haven't bothered to look for the bug, but it seems to me to be quite
reasonable default behaviour to lock the whole lot when you're dumping
transactional tables - it ensures you dump all tables from the same consistent
view.
I would rather take this up with the ZRM people - it should just
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:44 +0200, Johan De Meersman
vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote:
I haven't bothered to look for the bug, but it seems to me to be quite
reasonable default behaviour to lock the whole lot when you're dumping
transactional tables - it ensures you dump all tables from the same
- Original Message -
From: ag...@airpost.net
Excluding 'performance_schema' appears to eliminate the error. And it
seems does NOT cause a reliability-of-the-backup problem.
Hah, no, backing that up is utterly pointless. Never noticed it doing that.
It's basically a virtual schema
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:54 +0200, Johan De Meersman
vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote:
Excluding 'performance_schema' appears to eliminate the error. And it
seems does NOT cause a reliability-of-the-backup problem.
Hah, no, backing that up is utterly pointless.
that's a useful/final confirmation.
i use ZRM to do backups of my databases.
with v5.1.x, this works fine,
mysql-zrm-scheduler --now --backup-set manual --backup-level 0
to execute a manual backup.
i recently upgraded from v5.1.x - v5.5.12,
mysqladmin -V
mysqladmin Ver 8.42 Distrib 5.5.12, for Linux on i686
now, at exec
have you checked you permissions-table if all privileges are active for root
and have you started ymsql_upgrade after all updates?
Am 05.06.2011 22:20, schrieb ag...@airpost.net:
i use ZRM to do backups of my databases.
with v5.1.x, this works fine,
mysql-zrm-scheduler --now --backup-set
hi,
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 22:24 +0200, Reindl Harald
h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
have you checked you permissions-table if all privileges are active for root
i've got,
mysql show grants for 'root'@'localhost';
the grant statements does nobody interest
maybe use phpmyadmin for a clearer display
mysql select * from mysql.user where user='root' limit 1;
fwiw, others are seeing this. e.g., in addition to the two bugs i'd
already referenced,
http://www.directadmin.com/forum/showthread.php?p=202053
and one
http://qa.lampcms.com/q122897/Can-t-backup-mysql-table-with-mysqldump-SELECT-LOCK-TABL-command
claims a solution
Add --skip-add-locks to
hm - bad
i would use a replication slave and stop him for consistent backups
because dumb locks are not really a good solution independent
if this works normally
Am 05.06.2011 23:26, schrieb ag...@airpost.net:
fwiw, others are seeing this. e.g., in addition to the two bugs i'd
already
BTW
WHY is everybody ansering to the list AND the author of the last post?
this reults in get every message twice :-(
Am 05.06.2011 23:26, schrieb ag...@airpost.net:
fwiw, others are seeing this. e.g., in addition to the two bugs i'd
already referenced,
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 23:30 +0200, Reindl Harald
h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
BTW
WHY is everybody ansering to the list AND the author of the last post?
this reults in get every message twice :-(
Reply - sends to ONLY the From == h.rei...@thelounge.net
Reply to all sends to BOTH the From ==
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 23:29 +0200, Reindl Harald
h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
i would use a replication slave and stop him for consistent backups
because dumb locks are not really a good solution independent
if this works normally
unfortunately, i have no idea what that means.
something's
Am 05.06.2011 23:49, schrieb ag...@airpost.net:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 23:29 +0200, Reindl Harald
h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
i would use a replication slave and stop him for consistent backups
because dumb locks are not really a good solution independent
if this works normally
i still have no idea why this is necessary.
there seems to be a but, problem, misconfiguration, etc.
wouldn't it make some sense to try to FIX it, rather than setting up a
completely different server?
perhaps someone with an idea of the problem and its solution will be
able to chime in.
--
Am 05.06.2011 23:55, schrieb ag...@airpost.net:
i still have no idea why this is necessary.
take it or not
it is a professional solution which works for
databses with 20 GB every day here with rsync
without interrupt/lock mysqld a second
and it is much faster
there seems to be a but,
It is basicly a not clever solution to run 32bit libs with a 64bit system.
You have to compile -m32 and all sort of things.
It is *way* better to compile with pure 64bit.
re,
wh
Am 04.06.2011 02:18, schrieb Alex Gaynor:
I've got a 64-bit Linux system, with a 32-bit libmysqlclient (and a
: 142345464
: 142345496
: 142345584
def: 1280069443
I'm not sure what the issue is, and it may very well be on my end, but any
debugging help you can provide would be great (this was originally extracted
from a bug in a Python MySQL driver I'm working on using the ctypes FFI).
Thanks,
Alex
the nameserver, too, and not refreshing that along with the host cache on a
flush hosts command.
Can anyone confirm this is the case, and wether or not a bug has been logged
about it? I can't seem to find one.
--
Bier met grenadyn
Is als mosterd by den wyn
Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
Hy die't
proper lookups. I strongly suspect that this is due to it internally
caching the nameserver, too, and not refreshing that along with the host
cache on a flush hosts command.
Can anyone confirm this is the case, and wether or not a bug has been
logged about it? I can't seem to find one.
--
Bier
- Original Message -
From: Claudio Nanni claudio.na...@gmail.com
Consider also the DNS TTL.
That should be irrelevant when changing DNS servers :-)
If you flush hosts in MySQL it'll ask again the OS to resolve a name
, but if that is still in the DNS cache it could return that
caching the nameserver, too, and not refreshing that along with
the host cache on a flush hosts command.
Can anyone confirm this is the case, and wether or not a bug has been
logged about it? I can't seem to find one.
I doubt that mysql calls anything other than gethostbyname() or
getaddrinfo
- Original Message -
From: Dan Nelson dnel...@allantgroup.com
I doubt that mysql calls anything other than gethostbyname() or
getaddrinfo(), so your behaviour is probably dependant on whatever OS
you are running and how often its local resolver re-checks resolv.conf.
Usually that's
Dear MySQL users,
This is the list of bug fixes. For the functional enhancements, see part
1 of this mail:
Bugs fixed:
* Performance: InnoDB Storage Engine: An UPDATE statement for an
InnoDB table could be slower than necessary if it changed a
column covered by a prefix
Hi Thomas,
Did you run the post install script?
http://kae.li/iiikj
Claudio
On Apr 2, 2011 2:20 AM, Thomas Dineen tdin...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Hi,
On 2-4-2011 2:18, Thomas Dineen wrote:
Can't find file: './mysql/host.frm' (errno: 13)
http://tinyurl.com/3sc3ydx
--
Kind regards / met vriendelijke groet,
Jigal van Hemert.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:
Am 02.04.2011 02:18, schrieb Thomas Dineen:
Gentlemen:
- Keep in mind that I have approximately 50 hours into this Mysql server
install and still no
results!
what have you done the whole time?
have you tried RTFM?
we are not here to guide a blind one trough a basic setup
because at the
Reindl Harald,
I would appreciate if you could please lower your tones.
and keep this list as professional as it has always been, this is not a
nerds forum.
There is always someone that knows more than you but he's not shouting at
you everytime you say something wrong.
If you think that a
Am 02.04.2011 02:18, schrieb Thomas Dineen:
The following error occurs:
110401 16:42:30 [ERROR] /usr/local/mysql/libexec/mysqld: Can't find file:
'./mysql/host.frm' (errno: 13)
BTW: you know google?
Can't find file: './mysql/host.frm' (errno: 13)
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=1279
so
Am 02.04.2011 13:11, schrieb Claudio Nanni:
Reindl Harald,
I would appreciate if you could please lower your tones.
and keep this list as professional as it has always been, this is not a
nerds forum.
*Problem:* 110401 16:42:30 [ERROR] /usr/local/mysql/libexec/mysqld: Can't
find file:
Got It; Thank You, Thank You, Thank You
On 4/1/2011 11:28 PM, Claudio Nanni wrote:
Hi Thomas,
Did you run the post install script?
http://kae.li/iiikj
Claudio
On Apr 2, 2011 2:20 AM, Thomas Dineen tdin...@ix.netcom.com
mailto:tdin...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
support | extended email support ]
Synopsis: synopsis of the problem (one line)
Severity: [ non-critical | serious | critical ] (one line)
Priority: [ low | medium | high ] (one line)
Category:mysql
Class: [ sw-bug | doc-bug | change-request | support ] (one line)
Release:mysql-5.0.67
Hi!
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 01.04.2011 04:28, schrieb Thomas Dineen:
Gentle People:
Using the following startup command: /etc/init.d/mysql.server start
I get the following error:
110331 18:49:41 [ERROR] /usr/local/mysql/libexec/mysqld: Can't find file:
'./mysql/host.frm' (errno: 13)
Gentlemen:
- Keep in mind that I have approximately 50 hours into this Mysql
server install and still no
results!
- Regarding the Sun Freeware package mysql-5.0.67-sol10-x86-local.gz
- When installed and started with the following command:
/usr/local/mysql/bin/mysqld_safe --user=mysql
The
(multiple lines)
MySQL support: [none | licence | email support | extended email support ]
Synopsis: synopsis of the problem (one line)
Severity: [ non-critical | serious | critical ] (one line)
Priority: [ low | medium | high ] (one line)
Category:mysql
Class: [ sw-bug | doc-bug | change
Hi zhongtao,
thank you for reporting this bug. It has been filed as
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=60279
Regards,
Roy
On 24.02.11 08.08, tanzhongt wrote:
create table t1(a int);
create table t2(b int);
PREPAREstmt FROM select sum(b) from t2 group by b having b in (select b from
t1
Hi：
I find a crash bug, version is mysql 5.5.8
Just try:
use test;
drop table if exists t1,t2;
create table t1(a int);
create table t2(b int);
PREPAREstmt FROM select sum(b) from t2 group by b having b in (select b from
t1);
execute stmt; -- crash
select version();
+-+
| version() |
+-+
| 5.0.45-community-nt |
+-+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
How i can use mysqli_prepare to work properly with the first procedure?
Maybe it was fixed in new versions or it's not a bug?
|
+++---++---+--+
11 rows in set (0.00 sec)
The same result, but not in 1 Minute but in less than the tenth of a
second, including the inner select step.
Is this a bug in the SQL parser?
--
Pascal Gienger
University of Konstanz, IT Services Department (Rechenzentrum
1 - 100 of 2315 matches
Mail list logo
