1:01:43',
ESTUDO_ID=null, EXPEDICAO_ID=641, JURAMENTADO=null, NUMERO_LANCAMENTO=1,
NUMERO_REPROGRAMACOES=null, PERIODO_LANCAMENTO_PARCIAL_ID=null,
PRODUTO_EDICAO_ID=464, REPARTE=2700, REPARTE_PROMOCIONAL=0,
SEQUENCIA_MATRIZ=null, STATUS='EXPEDIDO', TIPO_LANCAMENTO='LANCAMENTO',
USUARIO_ID=11
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Raphael Bauduin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the output of
> SHOW ENGINE INNODB STATUS \G
>
> I have several old active transactions, each having locked some rows.
> All or from the same process id, but with different thread ids. This
> is the oldest one, which is 2.5 day
Hi,
In the output of
SHOW ENGINE INNODB STATUS \G
I have several old active transactions, each having locked some rows.
All or from the same process id, but with different thread ids. This
is the oldest one, which is 2.5 days old:
---TRANSACTION 0 1532609805, ACTIVE 227995 sec, process no 2951
problem disappeared and the
selects behave as one would expect.
Many thanks to all who offered advice.
Carl
- Original Message -
From: "Perrin Harkins"
To: "Carl"
Cc:
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Select query locks tables in Innodb
2009/3/
I also thought of "SELECT for UPDATE" that locks the records but does not
prevent from inserting new ones,
any suggestions?
Thanks
Clauido
2009/3/12 Carl :
> I am still a little puzzled about how we could have a relatively large set
> of records (100,000+) and yet not cause any table to be locked as the server
> has only 8GB of memory.
What's the relationship you're implying between memory and locking?
Multi-version concurrency doesn
's suggestions also.
>
> Carl
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Brent Baisley"
> To: "Carl"
> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Select query locks tables in Innodb
>
>
> Ok, so you have 687 unique or
elp and Baron's suggestions also.
Carl
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Baisley"
To: "Carl"
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Select query locks tables in Innodb
Ok, so you have 687 unique organization serial numbers. That's not
ver
on Schwartz"
To: "Carl"
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Select query locks tables in Innodb
I don't think it locks the tables. The behavior may be similar, but I
seriously doubt that's what's happening. Take a snapshot of SHOW
INNODB STAT
I don't think it locks the tables. The behavior may be similar, but I
seriously doubt that's what's happening. Take a snapshot of SHOW
INNODB STATUS while this is going on. And use mysqladmin debug and
check the error log. Then put those in some pastebin and send us the
link. A
receipt_master table), they are stopped until
the report query finishes and query on that table shows in Navicat as
waiting for lock ('Locked'.)
Since the report query is only reading data, I am puzzled why it locks the
tables. Any ideas?
TIA,
Carl
- Original Message ---
Carl,
Locked status in SHOW PROCESSLIST and a table being locked are
different. There is a bug in MySQL that shows Locked status for
queries accessing InnoDB tables in some cases. What version of MySQL
are you using?
The table is not really locked, you're just seeing that as a side
effect of wh
Carl,
Locked status in SHOW PROCESSLIST and a table being locked are
different. There is a bug in MySQL that shows Locked status for
queries accessing InnoDB tables in some cases. What version of MySQL
are you using?
The table is not really locked, you're just seeing that as a side
effect of wh
the isolation level but I believe it is whatever was set out of
the box (five years ago.)
Thanks,
Carl
- Original Message -
From: "Perrin Harkins"
To: "Carl"
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Select query locks tables in Innodb
2009
report query. It is a foreign key on one of the files that is used.
TIA,
Carl
- Original Message -
From: "Baron Schwartz"
To: "Brent Baisley"
Cc: "Carl" ;
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Select query locks tables in Innodb
On Tue,
2009/3/4 Carl :
> However, when I had all the pieces in the query
> (copy attached), I could easily see it was locking tables using the Server
> Monitor in Navicat.
I don't know what that is, but I think you'd better look at something
closer to the bone, like SHOW INNODB STATUS.
> Explain (copy a
Message -
From: "Baron Schwartz"
To: "Brent Baisley"
Cc: "Carl" ;
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Select query locks tables in Innodb
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Brent Baisley
wrote:
A SELECT will/can lock a table. It almost al
om: "Baron Schwartz"
To: "Brent Baisley"
Cc: "Carl" ;
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Select query locks tables in Innodb
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Brent Baisley
wrote:
A SELECT will/can lock a table. It almost always does in MyISAM (no
inse
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Brent Baisley wrote:
> A SELECT will/can lock a table. It almost always does in MyISAM (no
> insert/updates), almost never does in InnoDB. There is an exception to
> every rule. The problem is most likely in the 107488 rows part of the
> query. That's too many rows
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Carl wrote:
> A query that is selecting data for a report locks the files that it accesses
> forcing users who are attempting to enter transactions to wait until the
> select query is finished.
Is it an INSERT INTO...SELECT FROM? Those lock. Also,
this problem for a couple of weeks and have been
> unable to find a solution.
>
> The MySQL version is 5.0.37 and it is running on a Slackware Linux 11 box.
>
> The problem:
>
> A query that is selecting data for a report locks the files that it accesses
> forcing users w
I have been wrestling with this problem for a couple of weeks and have been
unable to find a solution.
The MySQL version is 5.0.37 and it is running on a Slackware Linux 11 box.
The problem:
A query that is selecting data for a report locks the files that it accesses
forcing users who are
Hi Baron!
I am going to try your solution on preprod on monday.
In the meantime, using your great slow-query-log analyzer, the strategy
I thought of was similar to yours,
but using only one select that only put a READ lock on the records
because, while the table is very 'selected' also at nigh
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Claudio Nanni wrote:
> I need to add an index on a table on a production server.
> It is one 7Gb InnoDB table with single .ibd file (one_file_per_table),
> the index creation on preprod server took 40 minutes but table was smaller.
> I tried to add the index b
I need to add an index on a table on a production server.
It is one 7Gb InnoDB table with single .ibd file (one_file_per_table),
the index creation on preprod server took 40 minutes but table was smaller.
I tried to add the index but was locking all applications on production
and had to kill it.
It is probably keeping a global lock on something else: perhaps the
MyISAM key buffer is at fault. Try loading this table's indexes into
a different key buffer and see what happens.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Saravanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It doesn't lock single
Hi
Last days frequently I see an error message :
"Can't create a new thread (errno 12) if you are not out of available
memory, you can consult the manual for a possible OS-dependent bug."
mysql is 5.0.41
server RAm: 2Gb and 100 Gb free spaces hard disk
users around 64
Into my.ini the max_con
It doesn't lock single table it locks all other select and update statements of
other tables too which I don't use in procedure.
Saravanan
--- On Sat, 3/29/08, B. Keith Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: B. Keith Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: p
When it selects values from the myisam table it is locking the entire
table.
Saravanan wrote:
Hi Lists,
i have created a procedure. It selects values from a myisam table and updates
an innodb table one by one ( not as huge update it clearly use where clause).
but whenever I run the procedure
Hi Lists,
i have created a procedure. It selects values from a myisam table and updates
an innodb table one by one ( not as huge update it clearly use where clause).
but whenever I run the procedure other statements waits for longtime until my
procedure completes updates. any idea why it blocks
Hi Lists,
I am using the version 5.0.51a. After I compiled that It shows version as
"5.0.51alog".
Here is the problem I am facing. I run a procedure to update the table. Which
updates a innodb table. But when It updates all other sql statements are locked
and I can see hundreds of sql stateme
It locks the table for both.
regards
anandkl
On 11/20/07, Thomas Raso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> just a simple question :
>
> Does the query ANALYZE position reads and/or writes locks ?
>
> I read these two pages but I didn't find the answer..
Hi all,
just a simple question :
Does the query ANALYZE position reads and/or writes locks ?
I read these two pages but I didn't find the answer...
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/newsletter/2003-04/a000155.html
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb-restrictions.html
T
--- Original Message
From: Baron Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: William Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 12:05:41 PM
Subject: Re: Full Innodb Table Locks deadlocking with AUTO_INC locks.
Hi William,
William Newton wrote:
Hell
ssage
From: Baron Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: William Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 12:05:41 PM
Subject: Re: Full Innodb Table Locks deadlocking with AUTO_INC locks.
Hi William,
William Newton wrote:
> Hello List,
>
&g
one of the INSERT's
times out then the LOCK statement manages to get the table lock. But it happens
repeatedly with as few as two connections sending inserts. The server can
handle many many more concurrent inserts if the lock is removed , with out
resulting in any locks.
Here is the o
t then the LOCK statement manages to get the table lock. But it happens
repeatedly with as few as two connections sending inserts. The server can
handle many many more concurrent inserts if the lock is removed , with out
resulting in any locks.
Here is the output of show proc
Hi Michael,
Michael Dykman wrote:
I saw mention of something called string locks in an earlier thread,
yet I see nothing like it in the mysql documentation. Could somebody
please point me at a reference?
It is the function GET_LOCK() you want:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/en/miscellaneous
I saw mention of something called string locks in an earlier thread,
yet I see nothing like it in the mysql documentation. Could somebody
please point me at a reference?
--
- michael dykman
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- All models are wrong. Some models are useful.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For
In the last episode (Dec 22), Jason J. W. Williams said:
> I guess I'm curious why this query acquires a read lock. Is it
> because its in a transaction? Thank you very much in advance!
You mean as opposed to a write lock? Only inserts and updates need
write locks.
Or do you mea
dvice/guidance I would be very
> grateful. I'm trying to determine why the following SELECT query
> table locks the "bad_behavior" table referenced the query.
>
> 'bad_behavior' is MyISAM
> 'c' is InnoDB
> 'a' is InnoDB
>
> Query:
In the last episode (Dec 21), Jason J. W. Williams said:
> If someone could suggest some advice/guidance I would be very
> grateful. I'm trying to determine why the following SELECT query
> table locks the "bad_behavior" table referenced the query.
>
> 'bad_
Hi All,
If someone could suggest some advice/guidance I would be very
grateful. I'm trying to determine why the following SELECT query table
locks the "bad_behavior" table referenced the query.
'bad_behavior' is MyISAM
'c' is InnoDB
'a' is InnoDB
Q
/refman/5.0/en/lock-tables.html
- Original Message -
From: Ow Mun Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Submit MySQL
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 11:21:25 PM GMT-0500 US/Eastern
Subject: How to view locks in MySQL
Under MSSQL there's a stored procedure called sp_lock which can
Under MSSQL there's a stored procedure called sp_lock which can be used.
Is there an equivalent one in mySQL?
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
e-
> From: 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
k James'; mysql@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 Inf
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 Farmington Ave.
Farmington, CT 06032
860.674.8796
: 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 replic
sregarding whether performance would be better or worse with a JOIN,
what I find odd is that this DELETE statement on Vers seems to be
putting locks on Elems. Might this be a bug in InnoDB? Innotop has this
to say:
Locks Held and Waited For
Txn What Mode
; [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 p
Baron 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/i
odeID = ?)))
Disregarding whether performance would be better or worse with a JOIN,
what I find odd is that this DELETE statement on Vers seems to be
putting locks on Elems. Might this be a bug in InnoDB? Innotop has this
to say:
Locks Held and Waited For
Txn
the long-running query as short as possible is probably a good
idea. Maybe you can break it up into several queries so it doesn't try to lock so many
rows at once. There could be many other approaches too, it just depends on your needs
and data.
Without altering how locks are handled
: 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
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
id 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
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
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
ning on different hosts, the db server
is running on
Linux db 2.6.14.2 #4 SMP Thu Nov 17 09:54:44 CET 2005 x86_64 GNU/Linux
model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.00GHz
stepping: 4
cpu MHz : 3000.229
cache size : 1024 KB
4GB RAM.
My problem is that I get a
Assuming that the locking issues occur mainly when an insert is being
performed (i.e. replying to a post) then what about using read local
locks for selects so that you can perform con-current inserts?
If you have a lot of old threads that are no longer updated but viewed
regularly then you
he db server
is running on
Linux db 2.6.14.2 #4 SMP Thu Nov 17 09:54:44 CET 2005 x86_64 GNU/Linux
model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.00GHz
stepping: 4
cpu MHz : 3000.229
cache size : 1024 KB
4GB RAM.
My problem is that I get a lot and very long lock
Hi,
is is possible to show a list of all named locks (obtained by GET_LOCK)?
Best regards
Achim
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday, 7 June 2006 at 11:35:56 -0700, James Barros wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've got 5.1.9 running on FreeBSD and I'm trying to do some backups,
> but mysqldump is locking up on me.
>
> when I run:
> mysqldump -uroot --opt mysql
> (and yes, it's a test box, so there is no root password. I can
>
Hello,
I've got 5.1.9 running on FreeBSD and I'm trying to do some backups,
but mysqldump is locking up on me.
when I run:
mysqldump -uroot --opt mysql
(and yes, it's a test box, so there is no root password. I can
duplicate this behavior with other accounts with sufficient priv's
specify
Robert,
- Original Message -
From: ""Robert DiFalco"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 8:27 PM
Subject: RE: Why do these transactions show table locks?
It might be important to note that I have a d
-Original Message-
From: Robert DiFalco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 9:33 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Why do these transactions show table locks?
My understanding is that innodb should not be using table locks for
insert, update, or
My understanding is that innodb should not be using table locks for
insert, update, or delete. However, the following transactions are
showing table locks. What's up?
R.
---TRANSACTION 0 4573, ACTIVE 1 sec, OS thread id 3112 setting table
lock
mysql tables in use 1, locked 0
LOCK WAIT 2
ysqld_safe --defaults-file=/etc/my.cnf
>--pid-file=/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.pid -O bdb_max_lock=12
>mysql 9184 33.6 3.3 179136 70148 ? Sl 01:00 177:45
>/usr/libexec/mysqld --defaults-file=/etc/my.cnf --basedir=/usr
>--datadir=/var/lib/mysql --user=mysql
>--pid-file=/va
gt;begin work
>>delete from mytable where myfield='boo' /*delete about 100 rows*/
>>for (i=0; i<=100; i++){
>>insert into mytable values(...);
>>}
>>commit
>>
>>During the insert command i get the following error:
>>"Lock table is ou
Bdb tables locks are at page level, how can I determine the number of
pages of my table?
mysql> show variables like '%binlog_cache_size%';
+---++
| Variable_name | Value |
+---++
| binlog_cache_siz
for (i=0; i<=100; i++){
> insert into mytable values(...);
> }
> commit
>
> During the insert command i get the following error:
> "Lock table is out of available locks"
>
> I tried to resolve the problem starting mysqld with -O
> bdb_max_lock=6 and later with
Hi Marco,
My hint is to read the BDB section of the manual:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/bdb-start.html
specifically the part that says:
" With the bdb_max_lock variable, you can specify the maximum number
of locks that can be active on a BDB table. The default is 10,000. You
s
and i get the following error:
"Lock table is out of available locks"
I tried to resolve the problem starting mysqld with -O
bdb_max_lock=6 and later with -O bdb_max_lock=12 but i still
receive the same error.
dbd related variables follows:
mysql>
Adam Newby wrote:
Description:
We have distributed applications which make extensive use of the
get_lock() function
to acquire a system-wide lock. Occasionally, all copies of a given
application
block attempting to acquire a lock on the same lock string. Using
is_used_lock() repo
Description:
We have distributed applications which make extensive use of the
get_lock() function
to acquire a system-wide lock. Occasionally, all copies of a given
application
block attempting to acquire a lock on the same lock string. Using
is_used_lock() reports
icht-
Von: Gleb Paharenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. Juli 2005 10:35
An: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Betreff: Re: Locks on Heap tables
Hello.
Are you sure that your server doesn't swap? Providing output
of 'SHOW STATUS', 'SHOW VARIABLES' and your table definiti
session management. We are using a heap for that =
> case
> as well as for instance phpbb does.=20
> Lately we are experiencing long lasting table locks due to deletes or
> updates on the session table. I know that heap tables only support table
> wide locking, but shouldn&#x
experiencing long lasting table locks due to deletes or
updates on the session table. I know that heap tables only support table
wide locking, but shouldn't those locks be gone quite fast? I have already
checked the obvious reasons for this kind of behaviour like swapping but I
couldn't find anyt
Hi
I saw following example in the documentation on chapter 15.5 when you
look at the property "innodb_locks_unsafe_for_binlog":
Example from the docu
START---
CREATE TABLE A(A INT NOT NULL, B INT);
INSERT INTO A VALUES
Also consider buying MySQL support, which will give your requests a bit more
weight.
If that put select into table without locks back into mysql, I would
however, I dont think it will, I've got X dollars for hardware/software
on a given project, my only option is a different database fo
report says. INSERT ... SELECTs don't have a
simple record source like INSERT VALUES() or LOAD DATA. They're
pulling from another table, which requires table locks, and DELAYED
inserts apparently don't use true table locks.
> I view this as a showstopper on new projects, I dont want
ions?
Please see http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/News-4.0.18.html :
INSERT DELAYED ... SELECT ... could cause table corruption because
tables were not locked properly. This is now fixed by ignoring DELAYED
in this context. (Bug #1983)
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=1983
Obviously I saw
In the last episode (Nov 15), matt_lists said:
> I think I found the problem all our input files are prepped in a
> separate table then insert delayed select * from temptable into
> production
>
> 4.0.18-19 removed this!
>
> I dont know why they would allow insert delayed values, or load data
> i
I think I found the problem
all our input files are prepped in a separate table
then insert delayed select * from temptable into production
4.0.18-19 removed this!
I dont know why they would allow insert delayed values, or load data
infile concurrent
but not on a select into table!?
Sucks, rewrit
At 02:12 PM 11/15/2004, you wrote:
How do I avoid insert locks?
We updated from mysql 4.0.18 to 4.1.7
now all my inserts lock tables, I had 500 asp timeouts within 30 minutes
after installing 4.1.7
I also had over 400 connections to the database, as all the threads were
locked waiting, asp
How do I avoid insert locks?
We updated from mysql 4.0.18 to 4.1.7
now all my inserts lock tables, I had 500 asp timeouts within 30 minutes
after installing 4.1.7
I also had over 400 connections to the database, as all the threads were
locked waiting, asp timeout is set to 30 seconds, the
Selon Harald Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Julien ALLANOS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, I've tried the following scenario:
>
> > 1/ User A: SET GLOBAL TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED;
> > 2/ User B: SET GLOBAL TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ C
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Julien ALLANOS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I've tried the following scenario:
> 1/ User A: SET GLOBAL TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED;
> 2/ User B: SET GLOBAL TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED;
> 3/ User A: START TRANSACTION;
> 4/ User B
Selon Harald Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Julien ALLANOS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Thanks, I've already read these pages.
>
> > Here is a test example I've done:
>
> > 1/ User A: SET GLOBAL TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED;
> > 2/ User B: SET GLO
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Julien ALLANOS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks, I've already read these pages.
> Here is a test example I've done:
> 1/ User A: SET GLOBAL TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED;
> 2/ User B: SET GLOBAL TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED;
> 3/ Use
Date : Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:35:40 +0100
De : Julien ALLANOS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Adresse de retour :Julien ALLANOS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sujet : Re: Read locks with InnoDB?
À : Gleb Paharenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Julien ALLANOS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
&
he table, user B executes th=
> e
> SELECT query: he gets the same result as A, and starts doing the *same* s=
> tuff
> as A, which is something I need to avoid.
>
> How could I achieve this? Is it possible to have blocking SELECT queries,=
> or to
> set read
ame* stuff
as A, which is something I need to avoid.
How could I achieve this? Is it possible to have blocking SELECT queries, or to
set read locks on one row (without locking all the table, to let others users
purge the following entries)?
Thanks for feedback.
--
Ju
Mayuran Yogarajah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any command I can issue to release ALL locks held by any/all
> transactions ? I know that restarting the server does this, but is there
> a way to do this without restarting ?
No.
--
For technical support contra
Is there any command I can issue to release ALL locks held by any/all
transactions ? I know that restarting the server does this, but is there
a way to do this without restarting ?
thanks,
Mayuran
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http
I hate to pry (snoop) but my curiosity is just going nuts! If this is a
sensitive issue, please ignore my questions
What are you doing that requires you to mass-replace so many records so
often? Are they design or processing requirements (or both) that require
this kind of bulk exchange of
matt ryan wrote:
Replace does a delete followed by an insert.
Ahh, I'm testing innodb on our tables with this problem
Doh another problem
innodb has no merge option, I have too much data, and the only way to
deal with it, is partition the data and then tie it together with merge
views.
Unfortun
matt ryan wrote:
matt ryan wrote:
Replace does a delete followed by an insert.
Ahh, I'm testing innodb on our tables with this problem
I've switched to innodb but performance isnt very good
while the insert runs, here's what I get for performance
select count(*) from rondon;
1 row in .13 sec
sele
matt ryan wrote:
Replace does a delete followed by an insert.
Ahh, I'm testing innodb on our tables with this problem
I've switched to innodb but performance isnt very good
while the insert runs, here's what I get for performance
select count(*) from rondon;
1 row in .13 sec
select count(*) from r
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
