> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Does this sound about right? Anybody see any road hazards? If not, and
>> this line of thinking is reasonable, should the DB with the older
records
>> also be replicated so that when a new old records table needs to be
>> created, I don't have to repeat everythin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Does this sound about right? Anybody see any road hazards? If not, and
> this line of thinking is reasonable, should the DB with the older records
> also be replicated so that when a new old records table needs to be
> created, I don't have to repeat everything on th
The recent thread about merge tables led me to explore using them with
replication.
I see bug reports for the 4.0.** series regarding replication and merge
tables, and I've read the manual about merge table problems in the 5.0.**
series ( we are using 5.0.22 ), but I'm curious if
- Original Message -
From: "mos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Best way to combine MYISAM to MERGE tables ...
At 11:33 AM 2/18/2008, you wrote:
Hi All,
I am working with MYISAM tables split by year, like:
data2003, da
At 11:33 AM 2/18/2008, you wrote:
Hi All,
I am working with MYISAM tables split by year, like:
data2003, data2004, data2005, data2006, data2007, data2008, all having the
same definitions.
To speed up the query process, I also defined MERGE tables, like:
CREATE TABLE data20032004
Hi All,
I am working with MYISAM tables split by year, like:
data2003, data2004, data2005, data2006, data2007, data2008, all having the same
definitions.
To speed up the query process, I also defined MERGE tables, like:
CREATE TABLE data20032004 ...
ENGINE=MERGE UNION (data2003, data2004
I thought about it I was actually going to use merge tables AND
partitions to split the underlying MyISAM tables across two disks and
then partition on top.
It's POSSIBLE to use partitioning the way I want it but I'm going to
have to grok it for a bit more.
Thanks though.
K
Kevin Burton wrote:
I want to use a merge table so that I can direct all new INSERTs to a
new merge table and migrate old data off the system by having a
continually sliding window of underlying MyISAM tables.
The problem is that of I do INSERT ... ON DUPLCATE KEY UPDATE and
that value isn't in
I want to use a merge table so that I can direct all new INSERTs to a
new merge table and migrate old data off the system by having a
continually sliding window of underlying MyISAM tables.
The problem is that of I do INSERT ... ON DUPLCATE KEY UPDATE and
that value isn't in the leading table wh
I have some base tables, called data2004, data2005 etc.
They all have the following structure:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `data200X`
( F1 int unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
F2 smallint unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
F3 smallint unsigned NOT NULL default '0',
F4 tinyint unsigned NOT NULL defau
-Original Message-
From: Brent Baisley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 10:24
To: Jacob, Raymond A Jr; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Adding and Removing tables from MERGE tables dynamically
I've got a similar setup, total records across about 8 tables ho
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:29 PM
Subject: Adding and Removing tables from MERGE tables dynamically
Problem: I use two applications one called snort, the client that
inserts data into eleven(11) tables.
The other application BASE joins the tables into one t
too but that
is a problem with the BASE application.
I thought that using MERGE tables would allow an administrator to create
a monthly table, using the original table names, composed of daily or
weekly
tables, by appending the date of creation to the table i.e.
data_table1_-MM-DD and
take your point to a certain extent. Of course, in the end it comes down
to the searches being used. I would make it a rule of thumb that any
search which requires more than a 10 tables is a Bad Thing. So if the very
large majority of searches are for 1-4 sensors over 1-4 days, this
architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Paul Halliday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 14/03/2006 12:09:10:
As an example:
There was a table called event.
This table is now broken up like this:
event __.
So for every sensor, and every day, there is now a new table. So if I
have 20 sensors, every day I
"Paul Halliday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 14/03/2006 12:09:10:
> As an example:
>
> There was a table called event.
>
> This table is now broken up like this:
>
> event __.
>
> So for every sensor, and every day, there is now a new table. So if I
> have 20 sensors, every day I will have 20
> > > The developer insists that for scalability issues, this was the
> > > answer. It is likely, for example in my deployment, that these tables
> > > would see upwards of 10 million records or more.
> >
> > Well, if there are problems with scalability, I guess you could
> > split it up in a few
e
developer will change the design) to speed things up? or a workaround
that I could do on my end to compensate?
Thanks.
> But -> why try to fix something that ain't broken (yet)?
>
> Were you experiencing problems already? If the application
> is fast WITHOUT merge tables, why
loyment, that these tables
> > would see upwards of 10 million records or more.
>
> Well, if there are problems with scalability, I guess you could
> split it up in a few (not 1600) tables and have them avaialble
> on different physical hard drives...
In my opinion, splitting things in
bility, I guess you could
split it up in a few (not 1600) tables and have them avaialble
on different physical hard drives...
But -> why try to fix something that ain't broken (yet)?
Were you experiencing problems already? If the application
is fast WITHOUT merge tables, why bother
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:14:52 -0400
"Paul Halliday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One of the databases I use just switched to using merge tables and now
> my queries are painfully slow. One table, initially had about 2.5
> million records and now with the ch
Paul,
> One of the databases I use just switched to using merge tables and now
> my queries are painfully slow. One table, initially had about 2.5
> million records and now with the change this information is spread
> across about 1600 tables. A simple query, say select count(*) has
Hi,
One of the databases I use just switched to using merge tables and now
my queries are painfully slow. One table, initially had about 2.5
million records and now with the change this information is spread
across about 1600 tables. A simple query, say select count(*) has gone
from .04 to about
"Martijn Tonies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/07/2006 10:46:58 AM:
> Hello Shawn,
>
> Thanks for replying.
>
> INSERT_METHOD is an option valid for merge tables.
> See http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/create-table.html
>
> From what I can s
On 07/03/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "insert_method" ??
>
> I thought I knew a little about databases and table design but that's
> a new term for me. What does it mean and how would I apply it in
> order to modify a table's contents?
>From http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/merge
Hello Shawn,
Thanks for replying.
INSERT_METHOD is an option valid for merge tables.
See http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/create-table.html
>From what I can see, the only way to get it, is parse the
SHOW CREATE TABLE output.
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterB
"Martijn Tonies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 03/07/2006 09:57:17 AM:
> Hi,
>
> Anyone got a clue where to get a hold of "insert_method"
> after creating the table?
>
> Is the SHOW CREATE TABLE output the only way to
> get it?
>
> Martijn Tonies
> Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebi
Hi,
Anyone got a clue where to get a hold of "insert_method"
after creating the table?
Is the SHOW CREATE TABLE output the only way to
get it?
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, Oracle & MS SQL
Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
My thoughts:
h
Oh yeah got it u meant UNION clause .
Still i have no idea about that i usally see it in show create tables
statements .
Sorry :(
--Praj
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 15:10:51 +0100
"Martijn Tonies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Simple way is show table status; there is a column Type : value MR
Hi,
> Simple way is show table status; there is a column Type : value MRG_MyISAM
is the base table.
No, that's not what I meant -- I meant, the merge
table uses a UNION clause to get signal where it
get it's data from.
Where can I get the sources for the merge table?
That is, what is used in the
Hi
Simple way is show table status; there is a column Type : value MRG_MyISAM is
the base table.
--Praj
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:02:44 +0100
"Martijn Tonies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> How do you know what the sources are for a MERGE
> table?
>
> SHOW TABLE STATUS doesn't show
Hi there,
How do you know what the sources are for a MERGE
table?
SHOW TABLE STATUS doesn't show it, as far as I
can see?
Is it really only available in SHOW CREATE TABLE?
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, Oracle & MS SQL
Server
Upscene Productions
http://
(still catching up!)
Tom,
We have similar queries where I work, and a union is the best way to
go. Leaving the tables large eats up valuable buffer space for us,
putting the logic in the client app is a bad idea (since you'd have to
do it for all apps).
In particular, our sessions table is very
The script to prove it follows.
Splitting a million-row fact table into a 5-part merge table makes
3-second queries take 9 seconds.
The basic problem is this: fact tables are generally referenced by
unique combinations of dimensions, and though often only one
underlying table needs to be referen
It would appear that LOAD DATA FROM MASTER processes databases and
tables alphabetically. When a merge table is being copied, and it's name
is alphabetically before some/any/all of it's components, the process
fails with a 1017 couldn't find file error.
Has this been fixed? If so, as of which
I read the manual and i am still confused as to how the merge tables use
indexes.
Can someone help me with this ?
-
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
there a Right Way to move a row from "foo_1" to "foo_2"
short of explicitly locking "foo"? It seems unwieldy to have
to supply the names of any and all MERGE tables to my
routine.
Eamon Daly
--
MySQL General
How does one insert records based on some kind of meta data or key in
particular table belonging to a merge table?
I have a network logging program and would like to partition the table so that
analysts can query certain tables belonging
to the merge table instead of the whold table to corelate e
e are they?
2. what is the max size for MERGE tables?
3. what is the disk size of MERGE tables (in addidtion to the traditional
tables)?
4. any known problems/issues/bugs?
we need it from someone with field experience on MERGE tables (and not
from the web, we already did that).
THX
Hello,
Is there any plan to support fulltext indexes in Merge Tables?
Thank You.
Santino
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Michael,
Problem for this variant: merge table has to be dropped and recreated
periodically.
during the short lag interval the log merge table
does not exist
You don't have to drop and re-create the table. Please don'
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:03:09PM +0200, Michael Arndt wrote:
>
> Problem for this variant: merge table has to be dropped and recreated
> periodically.
> during the short lag interval the log merge table
> does not exis
Hello *,
goal: using merge tables for annual / monthly storage of syslog information
using php-syslog-ng and syslog-ng
problem:
-one "actual table" must be available for inserts
-the merge table needs to be the target for "reports and queries"
-static parts of the m
| NULL| |
...
99 rows in set (0.02 sec)
I made a MERGE table for each year, so I have 4 MERGE tables named
fx1998,fx1999,fx2000 and fx2001
Then I wrote the following query:
SELECT
IFNULL(fx1998.comn,0) as idcomn,
IFNULL(fx1998pt.actc,0) as idactc,
IFNULL(
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 01:23:53PM +, Chris Elsworth wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if specifying LOW_PRIORITY disables concurrent inserts
> explicitly, so I'll try removing that and see if anything improves,
> but in the meantime, if anyone has any advice, please share :)
Ignore that bit. Found th
Hello,
Further to my MERGE table query the other day, I've now put it into
action and it seems to be working fine. However I'm noticing that
"INSERT LOW_PRIORITY" statements are blocking when there are SELECTs
running.
Does anyone know if concurrent inserts work with MERGE t
"Lorderon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is it possible to define MERGE table on several tables with full-text
> indexes?
Yes, but without specification of FULLTEXT index in the MERGE table.
> And to make a select on the MERGE table with MATCH AGAINST?
>
You can permorm boolean full-text sear
Hello All,
Is it possible to define MERGE table on several tables with full-text
indexes?
And to make a select on the MERGE table with MATCH AGAINST?
thanks,
-Lorderon.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EM
Hi Tony,
shell> perror 143
Error code 143: Unknown error
143 = Conflicting table definition between MERGE and mapped table
Matt
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 4:00 PM
Subject: Merge Tables not working...
> Hello,
>
Hello,
I've posted this before, but did not get a fix or find out what I am not doing
coreectly.
I've established several merge tables. 3 out of the 5 of my merge tables work
fine...but when I try to access (e.g. describe or query) the other two, I get the
following error:
mysql
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>ERROR 1016: Can't open file: 'new_master.MRG'. (errno: 143)
>
> All table structures are identical.
Maybe not..? :)
> Am I missing a basic error numbers page in the online docs? I've found a
> few, but nothing comprehensive, like a page where I can enter an
> error
Error 143 suggests that you have conflicting table definitions.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 7:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: MERGE tables error
I've created several merge tables from the command prompt.
I've created several merge tables from the command prompt. All seems well,
the .frm and .MRG files are created. The contents of the .MRG files are
accurate.
I flushed the tables (even restarted MySQL).
I can see the newly created merge tables, but when I try to run a DESCRIBE
Hi Dan,
Ooops, this makes a lot of sense - it works now.
Thanks for letting me know about the perror utility, it should help
greatly to identify problems in the future.
Regards,
Pierre-Luc
Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Aug 06), Pierre-Luc Soucy said:
I was working on some merge
In the last episode (Aug 06), Pierre-Luc Soucy said:
> I was working on some merge tables this morning and it worked fine,
> but after a few unsuccessful table creation requests (I was making
> some tests), I could not alter or select from a table for the
> following reason:
>
Hi,
I was working on some merge tables this morning and it worked fine, but
after a few unsuccessful table creation requests (I was making some
tests), I could not alter or select from a table for the following reason:
mysql> create table test_table (country CHAR(2) NOT NULL) TYPE=MERGE
UN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The manual page for MERGE tables states the code is in gamma since 3.23.25.
> But it also says you can only SELECT, DELETE, and UPDATE, which isn't true
> since version 4.0.something.
>
> Can anyone verify if the MERGE tables is still in gamma? We
The manual page for MERGE tables states the code is in gamma since 3.23.25.
But it also says you can only SELECT, DELETE, and UPDATE, which isn't true
since version 4.0.something.
Can anyone verify if the MERGE tables is still in gamma? We occassionally
have diskspace issues on our system
Hi!
On Feb 11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Description:
> MAX fails to return the correct value in some MERGE table situations.
Fixed, thanks.
Regards,
Sergei
--
MySQL Development Team
__ ___ ___ __
/ |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / Sergei Golubchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
/ /|_/ / //
>Description:
MAX fails to return the correct value in some MERGE table situations.
Based on experimentation I am guessing that the query fails to read all
of the member tables when the query can be performed entirely by reading
the index.
I seem to be able to reproduce this every time on MySQL 3
Hi, all
I have two tables with full of data. Their structure is same.
Tables1
id type name
1
2
3
...
Tables2
id type name
1
2
3
4
I want to merge them into one table.
id typename
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
How can I do it?
thanks in advance.
luoya
sql,query,queries,sm
Hi,
sorry, didn't look at the changelog... ;)
thanks!
corin
Monday, December 30, 2002, 9:29:12 AM, you wrote:
PD> At 9:01 +0100 12/30/02, Webmaster (Corin Langosch) wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>when trying to create a temporary table of type merge, mysql
>>2.23.53 fails with an error like this:
>>Can't fin
At 9:01 +0100 12/30/02, Webmaster (Corin Langosch) wrote:
Hi,
when trying to create a temporary table of type merge, mysql
2.23.53 fails with an error like this:
Can't find file: '#sql24b_776_0.MRG' (errno: 2)
when not using the temporary keyword, everything works fine.
so i assume this is a mis
Hi,
when trying to create a temporary table of type merge, mysql
2.23.53 fails with an error like this:
Can't find file: '#sql24b_776_0.MRG' (errno: 2)
when not using the temporary keyword, everything works fine.
so i assume this is a missing feature (not documented that this
is forbidden/not sup
Can you create a merge table whose component tables exist in other
databases? I am able to create merge tables for tables that are in one
database but I want to be able to aggregate data from multiple
databases. I am using 3.23 but I am migrating to 4.0.5a next week, if
that makes a difference
Tac,
Friday, September 27, 2002, 10:34:46 PM, you wrote:
T> We're having a problem with a huge merge table and BETWEEN. The same query
T> in MySQL 3, using an identical (binary) copy of the database, takes a
T> fraction of a second, in MySQL 4.03 it runs without stopping.
T> The query is a simp
We're having a problem with a huge merge table and BETWEEN. The same query
in MySQL 3, using an identical (binary) copy of the database, takes a
fraction of a second, in MySQL 4.03 it runs without stopping.
The query is a simple "Select * from my_merge_table where my_code BETWEEN
'2026676653' AN
from perror
143 = Conflicting table definition between MERGE and mapped table
On Sunday, Sep 22, 2002, at 18:36 America/Anchorage, David Herring
wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I get the following error when trying to access a table created of
> TYPE=MERGE
>
> mysql> describe yy;
> ERROR 1016: Can't
Hello,
I get the following error when trying to access a table created of
TYPE=MERGE
mysql> describe yy;
ERROR 1016: Can't open file: 'yy.MRG'. (errno: 143)
Reducing the number of colums in the tables to be merged removed the
problem.
Any ideas gratefully received,
Dave
( MySQL version:
Hello,
I am running a rather simple query on a merge table that seems to be taking
much longer than it should.
First let me show the table status of the tables I have merged into table
'blah':
NameTypeRow_format RowsAvg_row_length Data_length
Max_data_length Index_length
Hi,
I'm trying to make use of the new(ish) merge table
type, and am running into two problems. The first is
unexpected behaviour, the second is a straight MySQL
server crash. I have tested 3.23.47, 3.23.49 and
3.23.51 with similar results. Details below refer to
3.23.51. I have also tested on Dar
>
>Does your master table have a list of table names and the table's
>characteristics? How is the search called?
currently i have a master table called "files", the primary key is id and
the data tables are called filedata1 filedata2, etc.
where 1 and 2 correspond to the file id. Each of the f
At 15:44 -0500 5/6/02, Jay Blanchard wrote:
>[snip]
>>Then I attempt to query;mysql> select count(*) from tblCross1;
>>ERROR 1016: Can't open file: 'tblCross1.MRG'. (errno: 143)
>>perror 143
>>143 = Conflicting table definition between MERGE and mapped table
>>
>>Can anyone help with this?
>
>Drop
[snip]
>Then I attempt to query;mysql> select count(*) from tblCross1;
>ERROR 1016: Can't open file: 'tblCross1.MRG'. (errno: 143)
>perror 143
>143 = Conflicting table definition between MERGE and mapped table
>
>Can anyone help with this?
Drop the MERGE table, then try creating it with all the c
At 15:29 -0500 5/6/02, Jay Blanchard wrote:
>I have these two tables;
>mysql> describe tblClass11;
>+--+---+--+-+-++
>| Field| Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
>+--+---+--+-+-
I have these two tables;
mysql> describe tblClass11;
+--+---+--+-+-++
| Field| Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+--+---+--+-+-++
| ID | int(11)
Hi!
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Thelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eric> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I always get a syntax error when using INSERT_METHOD in creating merge
>> tables. If I leave off the INSERT_METHOD part it works f
Hi.
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 01:12:14AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Perhaps the INSERT_METHOD functionality was introduced in 4.0 but the
> merge tables themselves work in later 3.23 versions.
As I said, "INSERT for MERGE" was introduced in 4.0 (including
INSERT_METHOD).
Perhaps the INSERT_METHOD functionality was introduced in 4.0 but the
merge tables themselves work in later 3.23 versions. If this is the
case the documentation needs to be updated to show which version
supports what.
Eric
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote:
> Hi.
>
> AFAI
Hi.
AFAIK, insert for MERGE tables was introduced in version 4.0.0. Let's
see... yep, http://www.mysql.com/doc/N/e/News-4.0.0.html says so.
Regards,
Benjamin.
PS: The syntax you used should be fine with a version supporting it
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 04:00:02PM -0700, [
en the following:
>
> I always get a syntax error when using INSERT_METHOD in creating merge
> tables. If I leave off the INSERT_METHOD part it works fine. I have
> tried this on many versions in the past and now on 3.23.49a. I am
> running on Mandrake Linux 8.1 but have seen
, t_id INT, value VARCHAR(255));
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX test_idx on test(d_id, t_id);
SELECT *
FROM test
WHERE d_id < 500 AND t_id < 500;
This takes nearly 1 minute if I try to use MERGE tables (the index would
still remain UNIQUE)
The data in the test table has the following features:
Both d_
(record_buffer + sort_buffer)*max_connections = 80379
K bytes of memory
Hope that's ok, if not, decrease some variables in the equation
then the stack pointer
i've already used the stack trace info but i've not concluded anything.
Am i missing something about merge
Hi!
>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Has anyone else tried to set the INSERT_METHOD for MERGE tables? It
Chris> keeps throwing a syntax error for me.
Chris> Following the docs verbatim (http://www.mysql.com/doc/M
Has anyone else tried to set the INSERT_METHOD for MERGE tables? It
keeps throwing a syntax error for me.
Following the docs verbatim (http://www.mysql.com/doc/M/E/MERGE.html),
here's what I get:
>>output
mysql> CREATE TABLE t1 (a INT AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY, message
CHAR(20)
a
> normal key instead of
> PIMARY will solve the problem.
>
> (Filter : MySQL,database,SQL,etc)
>
> -
> Johnny Withers
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> p. 601.853.0211
> c. 601.209.4985
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto
Golubchik
Cc: Johnny Withers; Mysql-List
Subject: Re: MERGE TABLES
I have been playing around with merge tables. You MUST have the columns
and
indexes in the same order.
Eg. Do
SHOW INDEX FROM real_table;
SHOW INDEX FROM merge_table;
If the Column_name order is different you will get either no
I have been playing around with merge tables. You MUST have the columns and
indexes in the same order.
Eg. Do
SHOW INDEX FROM real_table;
SHOW INDEX FROM merge_table;
If the Column_name order is different you will get either no records or a
bunch of null records when you select on a column
Hi!
On Aug 29, Johnny Withers wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is a bug or if this is the way MERGE TABLES works
> in MySQL.
>
> It seems that if I have an INDEX in a field (id for instance), and I try
> to
> SELECT using a WHERE id=NUMBER, it will fail, even though that N
I'm not sure if this is a bug or if this is the way MERGE TABLES works
in MySQL.
It seems that if I have an INDEX in a field (id for instance), and I try
to
SELECT using a WHERE id=NUMBER, it will fail, even though that NUMBER is
a
valid id. ID is an int unsigned field with a key on it. Ho
HEllo!
Is it possible to create a merge table for
tables from different databases.
I wrote this script for database "collection":
CREATE TABLE dict
(
url_id int(11) DEFAULT '0' NOT
NULL,
I'm having trouble getting MySQL's union join to work when merging tables
from different databases. MySQL complains with "ERROR 1017: Can't find file:
'total.MRG' (errno: 2)" even though this file exists.
Here are the commands I use to produce the error. Please let me know how I
can get union jo
I am testing mysql for merge tables and symbolic links
on NT4. But it seems not working.
First I tried doing exactly what is there in the
manual, then searched mailing list and added
use-symbolic-link in my.cnf file in C:\ directory.
Mysql recognise that there is a database but can't
Hi!
On May 01, Basil Hussain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Ok, the first bug (incorrect COUNT, etc. for MERGE and individual tables)
> > was fixed some time ago. Though, it is possible that you found another bug,
> > the probability is low.
>
> I thought I might be encountering actual bugs in the code in
Hi,
> Ok, the first bug (incorrect COUNT, etc. for MERGE and individual tables)
> was fixed some time ago. Though, it is possible that you found another bug,
> the probability is low.
I thought I might be encountering actual bugs in the code in my 3.23.32
version. I'd taken a look at the changel
Hi!
On Apr 30, Basil Hussain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anyway, while we're on the subject, I seem to be having some trouble with my
> indexes on MERGE tables. I posted a message a while ago, but no-one seems to
> have noticed it...
>
> Basically, if I create my MERGE tabl
,
> as MERGE handler ignores requests for key creation - but SQL optimizer
> doesn't know about MERGE handler specific - and it shouldn't.
>
> So, please, specify the same keys for MERGE table, you specified
> for underlying tables.
I have been wondering about the use of ind
Hi!
On Apr 30, Matthew Shaw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The merge table created is called asic_cache. It has exactly the same
> structure as above except there are no keys what so ever. My
> understanding is that there is no need for keys on the merge
> table as the table handler uses the keys on each indi
le scan on each of the four
table but I'm not sure and if so why?
Thirdly, the following query has the same effect as above and blows the
time of the query over 5 mintues.
Qry = select * from asic_cache where subject = '10920411' and
search_type = 'CE C'
order by subject, s
e of the query over 5 mintues.
Qry = select * from asic_cache where subject = '10920411' and
search_type = 'CE C'
order by subject, search_type, field_index.
Looking at the mysql doco on merge tables on one hand it says there is
no need for indexes on the merge table itself but in
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
