In infinite wisdom Machiel Richards machi...@rdc.co.za wrote:
The current Innodb buffer pool size is at 4Gb for instance, and the
innodb tables then grow to be about 8Gb in size.
InnoDB manages the pool as a list, using a least recently used (LRU) algorithm
incorporating a midpoint
Hi,
First thing that comes to my mind is that it is probably the best time to put
your application server and database server on different hosts. Having said
that, in this case increasing buffer pool size is still advisable as per my
understanding. Your swap consumption will go up in that case
Well, my question is specifically related to in the event that the buffer usage
reaches 100%
Quoting Nitin Mehta ntn...@yahoo.com:
Hi,
First thing that comes to my mind is that it is probably the best time to put
your application server and database server on different hosts. Having
MyISAM does not support transactions so it is inherently in
'autocommit mode' all the time. You will run into this with any
transactional database, be it InnoDB, Falcon, or Oracle and DB2
installations for that matter.
For many classes of application, avoiding autocommit and explicitly
creating
Thanks for the clarification.
Michael
On May 17, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Michael Dykman wrote:
MyISAM does not support transactions so it is inherently in
'autocommit mode' all the time. You will run into this with any
transactional database, be it InnoDB, Falcon, or Oracle and DB2
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Angelina Paul arshup...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to change the mysql default storage engine from MyISAM to InnoDB.
What are the steps involved .Is it edit my.cnf file and add a line
default-storage-engine=innodb and restart the mysql server?
If you do not want
You need to locate the mySQL config file (helpfully named) my.cnf file. On
linux it is located at /etc/my.cnf
Then under the [mysqld] add the following line as shown below!
*[mysqld]
default-storage_engine = InnoDB*
And don't forget to restart mysql. After this whenever you create a table
its
Also, if you have read heavy workload, you might want to try using and
tuning your query cache.
Start off with something like 32M and incrementally tune it.
You can monitor some query cache related server variables.
Kyong
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Rob Wultsch wult...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Junior Ortis jror...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Guys i have a dedicated mysql-server and neeed tips and sugestion
to optimize its to a better performance.
1-) Here i have results from mysqltunner
MySQLTuner 1.0.1 - Major Hayden ma...@mhtx.net
Bug reports,
Hi Raj, Ananda, the schema is very simple, we don't have any blob or text
column.
I thought the same about the log files, so I tried with diferent sizes but
nothing change.
This is the output of iostat -x 1 when the performance is slow running a
restore
avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait
when the writes are happening, please run show full processlist and let us
know the out put.
regards
anandkl
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Max Bube maxb...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi list,
Im having problems with bulk writes (restores from mysqldumps, alters,
delete in (select ...)) with
This is an output from console when its performnace goes dows
Query OK, 65469 rows affected (0.82 sec)
Records: 65469 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0
Query OK, 65469 rows affected (0.78 sec)
Records: 65469 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0
Query OK, 65469 rows affected (10 min 57.30 sec)
Records: 65469
Max Bube maxbube at gmail.com writes:
The problem starts when I run bulk writes like an alter table or a restore
from mysqldump, its starts processing more than 5 rows/s but suddenly
the ratio goes down to 100 rows /sec. and then its stucked at this ratio
even if I restart MySQL. The
How big is your /tmp folder, can u move this to other fast moving disk.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Raj Shekhar spa...@rajshekhar.net wrote:
Max Bube maxbube at gmail.com writes:
The problem starts when I run bulk writes like an alter table or a
restore
from mysqldump, its starts
Hi Machiel,
What do you mean with innodb buffer pool is at 100% full ?
There are several status variables associated with innodb buffer pool ie:
Innodb_buffer_pool_pages_free is the number of unused data pages.
Innodb_buffer_pool_pages_total is the total number of pages.
2010 9:31 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Innodb buffer pool usage
Hi Machiel,
What do you mean with innodb buffer pool is at 100% full ?
There are several status variables associated with innodb buffer pool ie:
Innodb_buffer_pool_pages_free is the number of unused data pages
@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Innodb buffer pool usage
Hi Machiel,
What do you mean with innodb buffer pool is at 100% full ?
There are several status variables associated with innodb buffer pool ie:
Innodb_buffer_pool_pages_free is the number of unused data pages.
Innodb_buffer_pool_pages_total
There will be an increase in IO and a noticeable decrease in performance if
the buffer pool is too small. Give it all the memory which is not needed
elsewhere. If you can set it a little larger than the size of all your
innodb tablespaces that would be good.
Oracle is a very different animal to
Hi Johny
Do you have the my.cnf configuration file ?? that can simplify things.
Carlos
On 1/20/2010 3:32 AM, Johny Brawo wrote:
Hello!
I got all data files (ibdata1, ib_logfile, etc) recovevered from mine
old Debian 3.1 box (and i dont know MySQL version :( ). I want to get
that DB running
Hi John,
The data files will give you some informations like log_file_size, mutliple
tablespace is being used or not. Although my.cnf can help you a lot. With
the above information, use it with newer version of mysql.
Krishna
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Johny Brawo lydyh...@gmail.com
Machiel,
That is how it is supposed to work.
You assign a certain amount of memory(RAM) to it and the database engine
then manages it. It is highly desirable that this buffer is fully used, and
if the growing curve is slow it is because it is not undersized. If you
really need more ram for other
Thank you very much.
This now explains a lot.
From: Claudio Nanni [mailto:claudio.na...@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 December 2009 10:05 AM
To: machiel.richards
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: RE: Innodb buffer pool size filling up
Machiel,
That is how it is supposed
-Original Message-
From: machiel.richards [mailto:machiel.richa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 12:33 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: RE: Innodb buffer pool size filling up
Good Morning all
QUOTE: We have a MySQL database where
.
Regards
Machiel
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Schwartz [mailto:jschwa...@the-infoshop.com]
Sent: 01 December 2009 10:04 PM
To: 'machiel.richards'; 'Claudio Nanni'
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: RE: Innodb buffer pool size filling up
-Original Message-
From
Lukas,
If you can't get innodb_force_recovery to work, then you might have to
try to recover the data with these tools:
http://code.google.com/p/innodb-tools/
Regards
Baron
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:
AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: RE: Innodb buffer pool size filling up
Machiel:
We have a MySQL database where the
INNODB_BUFFER_POOL_SIZE
keeps on filling up.
Are you getting any errors or just noticing the buffer
pool is full?
I saw some error messages about
...@gmail.com]
Sent: 01 December 2009 01:12 PM
To: machiel.richards
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Innodb buffer pool size filling up
That is basically its use,
the buffer pool is the collection of all mysql innodb buffers,
and after warm up it goes to keep all cacheable data.
How big is your
...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* 01 December 2009 01:12 PM
*To:* machiel.richards
*Cc:* mysql@lists.mysql.com
*Subject:* Re: Innodb buffer pool size filling up
That is basically its use,
the buffer pool is the collection of all mysql innodb buffers,
and after warm up it goes to keep all cacheable data
-Original Message-
From: machiel.richards [mailto:machiel.richa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:17 AM
To: 'Claudio Nanni'
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: RE: Innodb buffer pool size filling up
The size was at 2Gb and was recently changed to 3Gb in size during the last
Machiel:
We have a MySQL database where the
INNODB_BUFFER_POOL_SIZE
keeps on filling up.
Are you getting any errors or just noticing the buffer
pool is full?
I saw some error messages about the buffer pool size
becoming a problem if the fscync is slow. Do you see
any more
...@jammconsulting.com]
Sent: 01 December 2009 08:55 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: RE: Innodb buffer pool size filling up
Machiel:
We have a MySQL database where the
INNODB_BUFFER_POOL_SIZE
keeps on filling up.
Are you getting any errors or just noticing the buffer
pool is full?
I saw
The query cache lays at the server level, above individual engine
implementations, and thus affects all of them.
It (case-sensitively!) compares the current query with the queries in the
query cache, and if there's an EXACT match (including all parameter
positions, wheres, and whatnot), it
2009/9/13 Dan Nelson dnel...@allantgroup.com
In the last episode (Sep 12), Arthur Meeks Meeks said:
I have a database with about 1000 tables and 150GB. I have done a simple
for f in $(cat tables); do mysql -uuser -ppassword database_name -e
alter table $f engine=InnoDB; ; done
I took
In the last episode (Sep 12), Arthur Meeks Meeks said:
I have a database with about 1000 tables and 150GB. I have done a simple
for f in $(cat tables); do mysql -uuser -ppassword database_name -e
alter table $f engine=InnoDB; ; done
I took about 3 hours and everything went fine, but I just
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Suhail Doshi digitalwarf...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi everyone,
Is there any forseeable issue with having an extremely large data set, say
1
TB in size for a single database and doing a SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE
constraints where constraints are super restrictive (in
At 03:16 AM 8/25/2009, you wrote:
Hi everyone,
Is there any forseeable issue with having an extremely large data set, say 1
TB in size for a single database and doing a SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE
constraints where constraints are super restrictive (in that they return
only a few rows since only a
Hi.
I think innodb will split these into many small pieces and then merge them
to execute.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Krishna Chandra Prajapati
prajapat...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys,
On MIS (management information system) server we have 16GB of physical
memory. 10GB has been allocated
Thanks, I am looking answer internally how the thinks work.
Regards,
Krishna
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Moon's Father yueliangdao0...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi.
I think innodb will split these into many small pieces and then merge them
to execute.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Krishna
nik...@doppelganger.com (Nikita Tovstoles) writes:
We have a java-based webapp that talks to MySQL 5.1 INNODB in READ_COMMITTED.
We use Hibernate and optimistic concurrency, so periodically concurrent write
attempts cause app-level Exceptions that trigger rollbacks (and then we retry
tx).
Hi,
I am using your procedure on MyISAM tables now and works but RENAME does not
work with locked tables,
(anyway it is already an atomic operation)
=BARON
Try something like this:
create table new_table like old_table;
alter table new_table add
-Original Message-
From: Paul McCullagh [mailto:paul.mccull...@primebase.com]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 6:34 PM
To: Mattia Merzi
Cc: MySql
Subject: Re: InnoDB deadlocks
Hi Mattia,
On Mar 9, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Mattia Merzi wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've got some problems with deadlocks
Hi there,
well, thanks for the hints regarding transaction-serialization
performance but, if you read my very first e-mail, I didn't mention
any kind of performance trouble, I just sometimes (once a *month*)
have to re-issue some db commands because of these
deadlocks, but 99.9% of the time I
Hi Mattia,
On Mar 9, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Mattia Merzi wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've got some problems with deadlocks on InnoDB tables.
On paragraph 13.6.8.10. How to Cope with Deadlocks
of the mysql 5.1 version, the last sentence states:
--
Another way to serialize transactions is to
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
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Claudio Nanni claudio.na...@gmail.com 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
Thanks for your comments Mike.
The largest table contains 48 columns (objects), the second largest 20
columns (users) and all the rest are less than 10 columns. The instance
sizes range from 10MB to 1GB.
Transactions and row locking are required. Most queries are updates,
followed by writes,
Thanks for your comments Mike.
The largest table contains 48 columns (objects), the second largest 20
columns (users) and all the rest are less than 10 columns. The instance
sizes range from 10MB to 1GB.
Transactions and row locking are required. Most queries are updates,
followed by writes,
Thanks for your comments Mike.
1. The largest table has 48 columns, the second largest 20 columns, and the
remainder less than 10 columns.
2. Each application instance (~30 tables) is between 50MB and 1GB.
3. Application instances are separate for many reasons including
infrastructure/scaling
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Michael Addyman
michael.addy...@googlemail.com wrote:
I have now thought of having 1 table type per database (i.e. ~30
databases).
This would be easier and cheaper to manage than hundreds of databases, and
would also allow databases to be finely tuned to
I think it would be good to think about scaling a bit more. What if
your requirements change from 500 application instances to 5000
instances? It is good to go with a solution now that can easily scale
over to multiple servers. Also, it would probably be good if you could
move databases over to
Walter, this is exactly why we went for separate application instances
initially - it is the most flexible solution for scaling.
However, we have since discovered that it's actually a lot more work to
manage than we anticipated!
We would love to continue using separate application instances
Johan, we considered this approach but concluded it would require too much
re-development (more than just the database layer).
Thanks anyway.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.bewrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Michael Addyman
Hooray! http://code.google.com/p/mysql-master-master/
Am I crazy to be considering replicating 500+ databases? I think so...
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Michael Addyman
michael.addy...@googlemail.com wrote:
Walter, this is exactly why we went for separate application instances
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Michael Addyman
michael.addy...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hooray! http://code.google.com/p/mysql-master-master/
Am I crazy to be considering replicating 500+ databases? I think so...
I don't think the number of databases is an issue - the main point is the
We'll continue to use many replication clusters of course. And yes, we use
bonded gigabit ethernet.
I stumbled across Dolphin Express today - if only there were a cheap
alternative!
Thanks for the reassurance!
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Johan De Meersman vegiv...@tuxera.bewrote:
On
Hi Michael,
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Michael Addyman
michael.addy...@googlemail.com wrote:
Dear Geniuses,
I have an application requiring ~30 InnoDB tables, which needs to scale up
to at least 500 application instances (500 instances * ~30 tables = 15,000
tables).
Discussions in the
I'll take that on board.
Thanks for your advice, mysql-master-master, Maatkit, mysqlperformanceblog,
your patches and community support!
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Baron Schwartz ba...@xaprb.com wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Michael Addyman
At 04:30 AM 2/10/2009, you wrote:
Thanks for your comments Mike.
The largest table contains 48 columns (objects), the second largest 20
columns (users) and all the rest are less than 10 columns. The instance
sizes range from 10MB to 1GB.
Transactions and row locking are required. Most queries
: Re: InnoDB: Thousands of Tables or Hundreds of Databases?
At 04:30 AM 2/10/2009, you wrote:
Thanks for your comments Mike.
The largest table contains 48 columns (objects), the second largest 20
columns (users) and all the rest are less than 10 columns. The instance
sizes range from 10MB
contained within this
transmission.
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:03:46 -0600
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
From: mo...@fastmail.fm
Subject: Re: InnoDB: Thousands of Tables or Hundreds of Databases?
At 04:30 AM 2/10/2009, you wrote:
Thanks for your comments Mike.
The largest table contains
At 05:03 PM 2/9/2009, Michael Addyman wrote:
Dear Geniuses,
I have an application requiring ~30 InnoDB tables, which needs to scale up
to at least 500 application instances (500 instances * ~30 tables = 15,000
tables).
Some of the questions people are going to ask are:
How large are each of
Gary,
I need to know a lot about your workload to say whether it will work
well on InnoDB with 4+ processors. You can check
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/ for a lot of benchmarks in this
area. But in general, my opinion is that for most workloads, 4 total
processors (cores included) is
In the last episode (Sep 18), AM Corona said:
I see the following log files
-rw-rw 1 mysql mysql 10485760 Sep 16 17:30 ibdata1
-rw-rw 1 mysql mysql5242880 Sep 16 17:30 ib_logfile0
-rw-rw 1 mysql mysql5242880 Jan 17 2006 ib_logfile1
I checked every table on all
Hey Josh, I came in really late on this discussion. It's been my
experience that InnoDB is great until the size of the database/indexes
surpasses the amount of memory you can give to InnoDB for caching.
The performance drop off is pretty quick and dramatic. I've seen this
happen on live
Aaron Blew wrote:
Here are a couple ideas:
* Decrease innodb_autoextend_increment to 8 or even 4. You may see
additional IO wait because you're pre-allocating space in chunks
disproportinate to what you immediately need, causing bursty performance.
* If your remaining MyISAM tables don't need
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Josh Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Blew wrote:
Here are a couple ideas:
* Decrease innodb_autoextend_increment to 8 or even 4. You may see
additional IO wait because you're pre-allocating space in chunks
disproportinate to what you immediately need,
Hello Josh,
why you moved your table to InnoDB? Your description doesn't sound like the
tables rows
are accessed concurrently and need to be locked? Are you sure you need
InnoDB for this table?
If you need InnoDB you probably need to redesign your queries and table
structure to get them
more
Tom Horstmann wrote:
Hello Josh,
why you moved your table to InnoDB? Your description doesn't sound like the
tables rows
are accessed concurrently and need to be locked? Are you sure you need
InnoDB for this table?
If you need InnoDB you probably need to redesign your queries and table
The rows in this table are accessed concurrently as any activity on the
site is recorded/added/updated to this table. We have several others
which serve similar purposes, (sessions, totaltraffic, etc...).
Is the performance lag occurring with read-only queries and updates/inserts
to the
between 16-32MB if you have many transactions.
TomH
-Original Message-
From: Tom Horstmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:15 PM
To: 'Josh Miller'
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: RE: innodb/myisam performance issues
The rows in this table are accessed
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Josh Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're seeing a significantly higher percentage of IO wait on the system,
averaging 20% now with the majority of that being user IO. The system is
not swapping at all.
O_DIRECT may not be the best setting for your hardware.
Tom Horstmann wrote:
Addendum..
Please also try increasing your innodb_log_file_size to a much higher value
if you
have lots of writes/transactions. Maybe 250MB is a good first try.
You need to delete/move the InnoDB logs before restart.
Not sure about this, but please also set
Perrin Harkins wrote:
What you really need to do is look at which queries are slow and run
EXPLAIN plans for them. Most big performance problems like you're
describing are due to index issues, so that's where you should be
looking. Server tuning comes lat
We definitely need to work on
To: Tom Horstmann
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: innodb/myisam performance issues
Tom Horstmann wrote:
Addendum..
Please also try increasing your innodb_log_file_size to a much higher
value
if you
have lots of writes/transactions. Maybe 250MB is a good first try.
You need to delete/move
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Josh Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We'd like to prove InnoDB and move onto that storage engine for the
transaction support, MVCC, etc.. but we're finding that performance is poor.
Well, thousands of large InnoDB database users prove that the engine
itself has
Here are a couple ideas:
* Decrease innodb_autoextend_increment to 8 or even 4. You may see
additional IO wait because you're pre-allocating space in chunks
disproportinate to what you immediately need, causing bursty performance.
* If your remaining MyISAM tables don't need it, take 2GB of the
Hi Ben,
Dear MySql,
I am trying to optimise InnoDB, and trying to find out how much of the
innodb log file contains row data which has not been written to storage.
Therefore I can optimize the size of the log, keeping it low to reduce
crash recovery time yet high enough to be useful.
Thanks for the idea. Unfortunately nothing I can easily use (for
instance in MySql Administrator) to log and monitor the lag in bytes
between log writes and row data writes. :)
Iñigo Medina García wrote:
Hi Ben,
Dear MySql,
I am trying to optimise InnoDB, and trying to find out how
Hi Nobert,
I verified the syslog file and didn't found any error.
Krishna Chandra Prajapati
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Norbert Tretkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 07.05.2008, 01:30 schrieb Krishna Chandra Prajapati:
Currently error log file is empty. What else can be
06, 2008 9:12 AM
To: Krishna Chandra Prajapati
Cc: mysql
Subject: Re: innodb disabled
Hi,
Can you send the error log file of mysql server in your machine?.
Regards,
Juan
On 5/6/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Juan,
I
To: Krishna Chandra Prajapati
Cc: mysql
Subject: Re: innodb disabled
Hi,
Can you send the error log file of mysql server in your machine?.
Regards,
Juan
On 5/6/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Juan,
I have verified directory permissions, its shown below
InnoDB is a little more work but doing
it
this way ensures ibdata1 is in a proper state.
-Original Message-
From: Juan Eduardo Moreno [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:12 AM
To: Krishna Chandra Prajapati
Cc: mysql
Subject: Re: innodb disabled
Hi,
Can you
is a little more work but doing
it
this way ensures ibdata1 is in a proper state.
-Original Message-
From: Juan Eduardo Moreno [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:12 AM
To: Krishna Chandra Prajapati
Cc: mysql
Subject: Re: innodb disabled
Hi,
Can you send
Eduardo Moreno [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:12 AM
To: Krishna Chandra Prajapati
Cc: mysql
Subject: Re: innodb disabled
Hi,
Can you send the error log file of mysql server in your machine?.
Regards,
Juan
On 5/6/08, Krishna Chandra
Prajapati
Cc: mysql
Subject: Re: innodb disabled
Hi,
Can you send the error log file of mysql server in your machine?.
Regards,
Juan
On 5/6/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Juan,
I have verified directory
Am Mittwoch, den 07.05.2008, 01:30 schrieb Krishna Chandra Prajapati:
Currently error log file is empty. What else can be the reason for
disable innodb.
You mentioned that you're using Debian. The MySQL packages in Debian
using syslog, check /var/log/syslog for errors.
Norbert
--
Message-
From: Juan Eduardo Moreno [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:12 AM
To: Krishna Chandra Prajapati
Cc: mysql
Subject: Re: innodb disabled
Hi,
Can you send the error log file of mysql server in your machine?.
Regards,
Juan
On 5/6/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati
looks like your mn.cnf has this commented
#set default_storage_engine=InnoDB
Can u please uncomment it, if u want INNODB as ur default storage engine.
On 5/6/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I have change the data directory from /var/lib/mysql to /data/mysql
hi
I want MYISAM to be the default storage engine.
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:42 AM, Ananda Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
looks like your mn.cnf has this commented
#set default_storage_engine=InnoDB
Can u please uncomment it, if u want INNODB as ur default storage engine.
On 5/6/08,
U also need innodb tables?.
As you have myisam as ur default, SHOW STATUS is showing it correctly.
regards
anandkl
On 5/6/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi
I want MYISAM to be the default storage engine.
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:42 AM, Ananda Kumar [EMAIL
Hi,
The InnoDB engine was disable because some ib_log files or Ibdata files,
InnoDB can´t read. In some cases, could be a directory permissions or some
error in creation of ib_logfiles when database is started. If you want , try
to see in the error log file generated in order to see more details.
Hi Juan,
I have verified directory permissions, its shown below.
linux76:~# ls -l /data/mysql/
total 535088
drwx-- 2 mysql mysql 20480 2008-05-04 23:44 dip
-rw-rw 1 mysql mysql 10485760 2007-12-23 01:21 ibdata1
-rw-rw 1 mysql mysql 268435456 2008-01-13 01:17 ib_logfile0
Hi,
Can you send the error log file of mysql server in your machine?.
Regards,
Juan
On 5/6/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Juan,
I have verified directory permissions, its shown below.
linux76:~# ls -l /data/mysql/
total 535088
drwx-- 2 mysql mysql
but doing it this
way ensures ibdata1 is in a proper state.
-Original Message-
From: Juan Eduardo Moreno [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:12 AM
To: Krishna Chandra Prajapati
Cc: mysql
Subject: Re: innodb disabled
Hi,
Can you send the error log file of mysql server
Hi,
Currently error log file is empty. What else can be the reason for disable
innodb.
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Juan Eduardo Moreno [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
Can you send the error log file of mysql server in your machine?.
Regards,
Juan
On 5/6/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:12 AM
To: Krishna Chandra Prajapati
Cc: mysql
Subject: Re: innodb disabled
Hi,
Can you send the error log file of mysql server in your machine?.
Regards,
Juan
On 5/6/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Juan,
I have
Thanks a lot
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Rob Wultsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Eric Bergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't see what the issue is. As Jay said the row counts in explain
outputs are estimates. When running an explain query MySQL asks the
Just waiting for any reply .
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Jay Pipes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please actually read my reply before asking the same question. As I
stated, InnoDB outputs *estimated* row counts in EXPLAIN, whereas MyISAM
outputs *accurate* row counts.
-jay
Krishna
I don't see what the issue is. As Jay said the row counts in explain
outputs are estimates. When running an explain query MySQL asks the
storage engine how many rows it thinks are between a set of values for
an index. Different storage engines use different methods to calculate
row count. Both
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Eric Bergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see what the issue is. As Jay said the row counts in explain
outputs are estimates. When running an explain query MySQL asks the
storage engine how many rows it thinks are between a set of values for
an index.
101 - 200 of 1574 matches
Mail list logo
