Re: Concurrency Question

2004-07-13 Thread Heikki Tuuri
Joshua, - Original Message - From: Joshua Chamas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 11:33 PM Subject: RE: Concurrency Question Quoting Marvin Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, It suggests below to bundle transactions into one commit

RE: Concurrency Question

2004-07-12 Thread Marvin Wright
? Marvin. -Original Message- From: Josh Chamas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 05 July 2004 20:23 To: Javier Diaz Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Concurrency Question Javier Diaz wrote: Hi We have changed all our tables to InnoDB and now the server is not able to handle the load

RE: Concurrency Question

2004-07-12 Thread Joshua Chamas
Quoting Marvin Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, It suggests below to bundle transactions into one commit, at what point does this become unecessary ? For example I have 2 threads each doing 12,000 inserts in 1 commit each. Would I really gain any performance if I did these 24,000 inserts in 1

Re: Concurrency Question

2004-07-06 Thread Egor Egorov
Javier Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3- Replication of these tables to another server ?? This is classical solution to the problem and probably the easiest to provide. Just do SELECTs on the slave server. -- For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita This

RE: Concurrency Question

2004-07-05 Thread Javier Diaz
? I would appreciate any ideas you can have, we really need this ASAP. Thanks Javier` -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 July 2004 10:42 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Concurrency Question Javier Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Concurrency Question

2004-07-05 Thread Marc Slemko
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 16:07:58 +0100 , Javier Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have changed all our tables to InnoDB and now the server is not able to handle the load, even when we are not running the SELECTs statements against these tables yet. As I mentioned in my email we make a lots of

RE: Concurrency Question

2004-07-05 Thread Javier Diaz
To: Javier Diaz Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Concurrency Question On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 16:07:58 +0100 , Javier Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have changed all our tables to InnoDB and now the server is not able to handle the load, even when we are not running the SELECTs

RE: Concurrency Question

2004-07-05 Thread Paul DuBois
At 18:48 +0100 7/5/04, Javier Diaz wrote: Hi I really don't like the idea to set innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit to 2, the information in these tables is important. On the other hand there is nothing I can do from the point of view of the number of transactions. Each process run its own set of

Re: Concurrency Question

2004-07-05 Thread Marc Slemko
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:48:50 +0100 , Javier Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I really don't like the idea to set innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit to 2, the information in these tables is important. On the other hand there is nothing I can do from the point of view of the number of transactions.

Re: Concurrency Question

2004-07-05 Thread Josh Chamas
Javier Diaz wrote: Hi We have changed all our tables to InnoDB and now the server is not able to handle the load, even when we are not running the SELECTs statements against these tables yet. As I mentioned in my email we make a lots of INSERTS and UPDATES in these tables (more than 3000 per

Re: Concurrency Question

2004-07-02 Thread Alec . Cawley
Javier Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/07/2004 10:28:32: We have some tables to record different data of the activity in our website. The number of INSERT, DELETE and UPDATE operations in these tables is huge (it could be more than 3000 a second). So far we don't have any speed problems,