On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Mike Spreitzer wrote:
> Today's instance finished shortly after I sent the email below. BTW, here
> are some specifics on the table (which uses MyISAM). Thursday's instance
> has 11 GB of data and 0.78 GB of index. Today's instance has 26 GB of
> data and 1.8 GB
preitzer/Watson/i...@ibmus
06/27/09 09:48 AM
To
mos
cc
mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject
Re: Indexing dynamics in MySQL Community Edition 5.1.34
Yes, all the indices are added in one "ALTER TABLE" statement. Thursday's
incarnation took about 1.5 hours, on a table created fro
lists.mysql.com
cc
Subject
Re: Indexing dynamics in MySQL Community Edition 5.1.34
Mike,
I re-posted your Show Status to the group to see if anyone can
offer
a way to speed up the indexing for you.
BTW, you are adding ALL of the indexes to the table using ONE sql
statement
right? An
mo...@fastmail.fm (mos) writes:
> At 12:37 AM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
...
> >my.cnf based on my-huge.cnf, expanding key_buffer to 8G,
> >myisam_sort_buffer_size to 256M, and putting tmpdir on the fiber channel
> >disk.
>
> You mean "key_buffer_size" don't you and not "key_buffer"? If you
> a
>From: Jerry Schwartz [mailto:jschwa...@the-infoshop.com]
>Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 10:22 AM
>To: 'Moon's Father'; 'mos'
>Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
>Subject: RE: Indexing dynamics in MySQL Community Edition 5.1.34
>
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>-Original Message-
>From: Moon's Father [mailto:yueliangdao0...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:12 AM
>To: mos
>Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
>Subject: Re: Indexing dynamics in MySQL Community Edition 5.1.34
>
>Who can please tell me what is mean o
| |
>> | Ssl_cipher_list | |
>> | Ssl_client_connects | 0 |
>> | Ssl_connect_renegotiates | 0 |
>> | Ssl_ctx_verify_depth | 0 |
>> | Ssl_ctx_verify_mode
2 |
| Uptime| 6952 |
| Uptime_since_flush_status | 6952 |
+---+---+
Thanks,
Mike Spreitzer
mos
06/25/09 02:32 AM
To
mysql@lists.mysql.com
cc
Subject
Re: Indexing dynamics in MySQL Community Edition 5.1.34
>-Original Message-
>From: Mike Spreitzer [mailto:mspre...@us.ibm.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:38 AM
>To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
>Subject: Re: Indexing dynamics in MySQL Community Edition 5.1.34
>
>Actually, my characterization of the current state is wrong.
At 12:37 AM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
Actually, my characterization of the current state is wrong. It appears
that one core is completely busy, I suppose MySQL does this indexing work
in a single thread. Is it reasonable for indexing to be CPU bound?
my.cnf based on my-huge.cnf, expanding key_buf
Actually, my characterization of the current state is wrong. It appears
that one core is completely busy, I suppose MySQL does this indexing work
in a single thread. Is it reasonable for indexing to be CPU bound?
Thanks,
Mike Spreitzer
Mike Spreitzer/Watson/i...@ibmus
06/25/09 01:30 AM
T
11 matches
Mail list logo
