certain rows can no longer be found -- Do CHECK TABLE. (It will take a
lng time.) It may tell you to REPAIR TABLE, which will also take a lng
time; but it will be necessary. (This is a strong reason for going to InnoDB.
But it will be 2x-3x bigger on disk.)
-Original
- Original Message -
From: Rick James rja...@yahoo-inc.com
Hey Rick,
Thanks for your thoughts.
* Smells like some huge LONGTEXTs were INSERTed, then DELETEd.
Perhaps just a single one of nearly 500M.
I considered that, too; but I can see the on-disk size grow over a period of a
* Smells like some huge LONGTEXTs were INSERTed, then DELETEd. Perhaps just a
single one of nearly 500M.
* Yes, there is an impact on full table scans -- it has to step over the empty
spots. Or maybe not -- one big cow chip of 500MB would be easy to leap over.
* OPTIMIZE TABLE is the
- Original Message -
From: Charles Brown cbr...@bmi.com
Interestingly, over the years, I've been reading your postings and
threads - without a doubt you're a major contributor. You've been
very resourceful and helpful to your peers. We may never know what
caused you to violently
Am 04.05.2012 06:45, schrieb Brown:
Does anyone have idea or experienced in MySQL Cluster configured for
bi-directional replication. Please advise me if you have to use NDBcluster
engine in order to get replication between the data nodes. I'm using MYISAM
on several tables that will not
that an intelligent individual like you
would bring himself this low flies in the face of all rational behavior.
Best regards,
-Original Message-
From: Reindl Harald [mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 3:23 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Myisam won't
[mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 3:23 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Myisam won't support replication in an MySQL Cluster environment
Am 04.05.2012 06:45, schrieb Brown:
Does anyone have idea or experienced in MySQL Cluster configured for
bi-directional
Charles,
How do you know your replication isn't working?
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Brown, Charles cbr...@bmi.com wrote:
I noticed that my replication stopped working after migrating to MySQL
cluster. My current engine is myisam. Does anyone have an idea why repl
won't work. Do I have
If I am not mistaken, NDB Cluster replication is separate from InnoDB/MyISAM.
Perhaps you set one up, but not the other?
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Moore [mailto:eroomy...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 2:35 PM
To: Brown, Charles
Cc: MySQL; DC
Subject: Re: Myisam
use repair table table_name use_frm ; and try it out.
It needs to be run inside mysql.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Ramesh rames...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to repair the table and i got this error
I tried with myisamchk --rq --tmpdir= /var/lib/mysql/tablog/TabEvents.MYI
mysql repair table SystemEvents.frm;
+--++--++
| Table| Op | Msg_type |
Msg_text |
+--++--++
| SysEvents.frm
Run this - repair table SystemEvents use_frm ;
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Ramesh rames...@gmail.com wrote:
mysql repair table SystemEvents.frm;
+--++--++
| Table| Op | Msg_type |
Msg_text
Lost all the records once i done the repair table with use_frm.
On 19 May 2011 10:30, Suresh Kuna sureshkumar...@gmail.com wrote:
Run this - repair table SystemEvents use_frm ;
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Ramesh rames...@gmail.com wrote:
mysql repair table SystemEvents.frm;
Can you paste the table files in the datadir and the execution part of the
below query.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Ramesh rames...@gmail.com wrote:
Lost all the records once i done the repair table with use_frm.
On 19 May 2011 10:30, Suresh Kuna sureshkumar...@gmail.com wrote:
Run
Is that index and all will be fine in that table, or have to create again?
On 19 May 2011 11:11, Ramesh rames...@gmail.com wrote:
Lost all the records once i done the repair table with use_frm.
On 19 May 2011 10:30, Suresh Kuna sureshkumar...@gmail.com wrote:
Run this - repair table
The index file will rebuild by using the above command.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Ramesh rames...@gmail.com wrote:
Is that index and all will be fine in that table, or have to create again?
On 19 May 2011 11:11, Ramesh rames...@gmail.com wrote:
Lost all the records once i done the
Hi Sha,
I think you need to explain yourself better to have a proper answer.
Are you talking about MySQL source code?
Claudio
2011/5/3 shahryar ghazi shahryar.gh...@gmail.com
Hi,
I have a question regarding MyISAM key length in MySQL 5.5.x. Can someone
tell me the files (and lines) to
Yes, I was talking about modifying MySQL source code.
Thanks.
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Claudio Nanni claudio.na...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Sha,
I think you need to explain yourself better to have a proper answer.
Are you talking about MySQL source code?
Claudio
2011/5/3 shahryar
Since everyone keeps bringing up Innodb's shared tablespace, I will point
out that Innodb has a file-per-table option where each table has it own
tablespace. This helps with management issues. While there is still a
central datafile it doesn't contain table data and is much smaller than if
you
@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Myisam advantages
Since everyone keeps bringing up Innodb's shared tablespace, I will point
out that Innodb has a file-per-table option where each table has it own
tablespace. This helps with management issues. While there is still a
central datafile it doesn't contain table
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:46 PM, P.R.Karthik prk...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am newbie to mysql can i know the advantages of myisam storage engine
and some of its special features.
--
Regards
Karthik.P.R
kart...@mafiree.com
Special features:
1. Not atomic.
2. No consistency.
3. Horrible
From: P.R.Karthik prk...@gmail.com
I am newbie to mysql can i know the advantages of myisam storage
engine
and some of its special features.
Works better with file-based incremental backup systems.
With InnoDB, you end up backing up a humongous file of all your InnoDB
tables, even if
Hi,
Much more conservative approach to disk space management - each MyISAM table
is stored in a separate file, which could be compressed then with myisamchk
if needed. With InnoDB the tables are stored in tablespace, and not much
further optimization is possible. All data except for TEXT and BLOB
Kyong,
Thanks for the feedback on InnoDb. I will tinker with it when I have
more time. I wonder if MySQL will ever release an alternative to Innodb
like Falcon or whether Falcon is dead as a dodo? :-)
Mike
At 11:07 PM 4/8/2010, Kyong Kim wrote:
We've seen good results throwing more
is reliable enough ?
Regards,
Lucky.
From: mos mo...@fastmail.fm
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Fri, April 9, 2010 10:03:26 PM
Subject: Re: MyISAM better than innodb for large files?
Kyong,
Thanks for the feedback on InnoDb. I will tinker with it when I have
At 09:10 PM 4/7/2010, you wrote:
Also depends on your data access pattern as well.
If you can take advantage of clustering my primary key for your
selects, then InnoDB could do it for you.
My suggestion would be to write some queries based on projected
workload, build 2 tables with lots and lots
We've seen good results throwing more RAM to the buffer pool.
It is true that InnoDB data never gets accessed directly on disk.
The only downside I know of with a larger buffer pool is slower restarts.
The load speed depends on the order of the inserts.
Random inserts or updates to primary key
Also depends on your data access pattern as well.
If you can take advantage of clustering my primary key for your
selects, then InnoDB could do it for you.
My suggestion would be to write some queries based on projected
workload, build 2 tables with lots and lots of data, and do some
isolated
From: Gavin Towey gto...@ffn.com
InnoDB should be your default for all tables, unless you have
specific requirements that need myisam. One specific example of an
appropriate task for myisam is where you need very high insert
throughput, and you're not doing any updates/deletes
Also depends on your data access pattern as well.
If you can take advantage of clustering my primary key for your
selects, then InnoDB could do it for you.
My suggestion would be to write some queries based on projected
workload, build 2 tables with lots and lots of data, and do some
isolated
InnoDB won't give you much in terms of disk crash recovery. That's what
backups are for.
Where InnoDB does excel is if your database server dies while updating
rows. If that happens, your database will come back up with sane data.
For both table types, once the data has been flushed to disk,
grows, the improvement in performance from using innodb over myisam becomes
more pronounced.
Regards,
Gavin Towey
-Original Message-
From: Carsten Pedersen [mailto:cars...@bitbybit.dk]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 12:58 PM
To: Mitchell Maltenfort
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re
In the last episode (Apr 02), Gavin Towey said:
I disagree. There's nothing about his requirements that sounds like
MyIsam is a better solution. InnoDB should be your default for all
tables, unless you have specific requirements that need myisam. One
specific example of an appropriate task
You want the crash safety and data integrity that comes with InnoDB. Even
more so as your dataset grows. It's performance is far better than myisam
tables for most OLTP users, and as your number of concurrent readers and
writers grows, the improvement in performance from using innodb over
Ah, if you are single-user and updating really is a special occasion
that is completely in your control, you could even use compressed
MyISAM. That makes the table read-only though, but it does give
performance benefits:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/4.1/en/myisampack.html
good luck!
Walter
Didn't even know that one existed. It has an attraction, esp. in
terms of backing up the data.
But the link refers to the performance benefit in accessing one line
at a time. Supposing I was doing a search for all records where a
particular string is present -- what would the overhead be in the
What is the basic functionality of the MyISAM, InnoDB etc ?
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/storage-engines.html
With regards,
Martijn Tonies
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
Download Database Workbench for Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase SQL
Anywhere, MySQL, InterBase,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Steve Staples sstap...@mnsi.net wrote:
Hi there.
I was reading last week (and of course, i can't find it now) something
about
'nicifying' a query, so taht it doesn't lock the table...
How is this done? I've read so much stuff lately, that i can't find it
[mailto:vegiv...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Johan De
Meersman
Sent: February 8, 2010 10:01 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: MyISAM no table lock
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Steve Staples sstap...@mnsi.net wrote:
Hi there.
I was reading last week (and of course, i can't find it now) something
Claudio,
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/10/29/hacking-to-make-alter-table-online-for-certain-changes/
Your mileage may vary, use at your own risk, etc.
Basically: convince MySQL that the indexes have already been built but
need to be repaired, then run REPAIR TABLE. As long as the
Hi Baron,
I need to try some trick like that, a sort of offline index building.
Luckily I have a slave on that is basically a backup server.
Tomorrow I am going to play more with the dude.
Do you think that there would be any improvement in converting the table
to InnoDB
forcing to use multiple
Be careful with using InnoDB with large tables. Performance drops
quickly and quite a bit once the size exceeds your RAM capabilities.
On Mar 1, 2009, at 3:41 PM, Claudio Nanni wrote:
Hi Baron,
I need to try some trick like that, a sort of offline index building.
Luckily I have a slave on
Hi Rolando,
I am going to give it a try, but the thing is that the creation of index
with MyISAM table causes
a re-copy of the table (using temporary table) and so it is the same thing,
and seens to take a lot of time.
I stopped it after 10 hours or so.
I think is the way mysql manages the
Yes I killed several times the query but now way, the server was continuing
to hog disk space and not even shutdown worked!
Thanks!
Claudio
2009/2/27 Brent Baisley brentt...@gmail.com
MySQL can handle large tables no problem, it's large queries that it
has issues with. You couldn't just kill
Great Brent, helps a lot!
it is very good to know your experience.
I will speak to developers and try to see if there is the opportunity to
apply the 'Divide et Impera' principle!
I am sorry to say MySQL it is a little out of control when dealing with
huge tables, it is the first time I had to
Have you tried disabling indexes while loading?
Here is what I mean...
CREATE TABLE tb1 (A INT NOT NULL AUTO INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,B VARCHAR(20),C
VARCHAR(10));
Load tb1 with data
Create a new table, tb2, with new structure (indexing B and C columns)
CREATE TABLE tb2 LIKE tb1;
ALTER TABLE tb2
Hello Olaf,
1) OPTIMIZE TABLE is the same as mysqlcheck with --optimize flag.
2) Both take care of large chunks of deleted data.
3) As mysqlcheck is just a frontend for OPTIMIZE TABLE command, it should be
replicated in either case.
2008/10/15, Olaf Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi All,
Just
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Jose Estuardo Avila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I've been trying to find information on how myisam handles locks. I
though myisam had locking only on writes and not on reads.
No, readers block writers. This true of any system that only has read
and write locks
I understand that reads are locked by writes but nowhere does of
mention that reads also block reads. Boy queries y posted to the list
are selects.
Jose E. Avila(tachu)
Yuku/Kickapps
Sent from mobile device.
On Aug 28, 2008, at 5:48 AM, Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug
In the last episode (Aug 28), Jose Estuardo Avila said:
On Aug 28, 2008, at 5:48 AM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Jose Estuardo Avila wrote:
Hi, I've been trying to find information on how myisam handles
locks. I though myisam had locking only on writes and not on
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Jose Estuardo Avila
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that reads are locked by writes but nowhere does of mention
that reads also block reads.
How could they not? You can't simultaneously read and write the same
data -- the read would get half-written
My point is that on my process lists there are no writes being done at
that time only reads and actually only one read all other reads are
locked as well as writes. I've gone through every single one of the
queries in my processlist at any given time when more than 500 process
pile up and
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Jose Estuardo Avila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is that on my process lists there are no writes being done at that
time only reads and actually only one read all other reads are locked as
well as writes.
Sure, that's because the reads are in line behind
Hi,
Keep your key_buffer_size to 25% of your physical RAM.
This should be good.
regards
anandkl
On 4/21/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am using myisam engine and there is 25 GB of data. The data is keep on
growing. How should i know that when to increase
;
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 10:03 PM
To: Edoardo Serra
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: MyISAM vs InnoDB - Index choice and Huge performance difference
just want to take a note on 4Gbytes
What
Tnx for your interest
# uname -a
Linux corona 2.6.18-5-amd64 #1 SMP Thu May 31 23:51:05 UTC 2007 x86_64
GNU/Linux
64 bit shouldn't have problems in using 4gb of ram .. right ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
just want to take a note on 4Gbytes
What kernel u use?
4Gbytes or bigger means
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 10:03 PM
To: Edoardo Serra
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: MyISAM vs InnoDB - Index choice and Huge performance difference
just want to take a note on 4Gbytes
What kernel u use?
4Gbytes or bigger means nothing
-30 23:59:59'
)
GROUP BY day, disposition;
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 10:03 PM
To: Edoardo Serra
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: MyISAM vs InnoDB - Index choice and Huge performance difference
just want
just want to take a note on 4Gbytes
What kernel u use?
4Gbytes or bigger means nothing on your MySQL, because if your kernel
is not compiled using correct patch or simply use CentOS/RHEL, then
your MySQl will limited to use up to 2Gbytes only, so 4Gbytes --
2Gbytes is useless
On 11/25/07,
U might want to try seting you index to calldate, disposition
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 10:03 PM
To: Edoardo Serra
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: MyISAM vs InnoDB - Index choice and Huge performance
Phil Butterworth wrote:
Can anyone please tell me what the Max size a myISAM file can grow too?
Thanks
Best Regards
Phil Butterworth
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/204119
Funny what google can do for you, wot say?
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list
On 15/01/07, Gabriel PREDA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Read here: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/charset-connection.html
have fun !
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Gabriel PREDA
Senior Web Developer
Thanks. Been quite a while since I've deserved a good RTFM! :)
Dotan Cohen
Why is MyISAM problematic...
MyISAM is a storage engine with some features... InnoDB is another
storage engine with other features... and so on...
As far as I know MyISAM is default storage engine... unless you
specify by hand another storage engine:
CREATE TABLE xyz (colX INT NULL)
On 15/01/07, Gabriel PREDA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is MyISAM problematic...
MyISAM is a storage engine with some features... InnoDB is another
storage engine with other features... and so on...
As far as I know MyISAM is default storage engine... unless you
specify by hand another storage
Read here: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/charset-connection.html
have fun !
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Gabriel PREDA
Senior Web Developer
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL
On 11/6/06, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA wrote:
Em Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:22:18 -0800, Jochem van Dieten escreveu:
PostgreSQL supports 2 phase commit. IIRC except for transaction
interleaving, join and suspend/resume it supports XA. I think that puts it
about on par with Ingres and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7 Nov 2006, at 12:35, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
On 11/6/06, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA wrote:
Em Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:22:18 -0800, Jochem van Dieten escreveu:
PostgreSQL supports 2 phase commit. IIRC except for transaction
Em Fri, 03 Nov 2006 09:18:21 +0100, Martijn Tonies escreveu:
On two-phase commits? I guess it's the IB 6 docs where you have to read
that, or get a copy of Helen Borries Firebird book. Get a copy of the
IBPhoenix CD that includes docs.
The Firebird project itself has no full documentation
Em Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:22:18 -0800, Jochem van Dieten escreveu:
PostgreSQL supports 2 phase commit. IIRC except for transaction
interleaving, join and suspend/resume it supports XA. I think that puts it
about on par with Ingres and Firebird.
I would have to analyze better, but I think
On two-phase commits? I guess it's the IB 6 docs where you have to read
that, or get a copy of Helen Borries Firebird book. Get a copy of the
IBPhoenix CD that includes docs.
The Firebird project itself has no full documentation yet - it's being
worked on.
Hm, do you mean 2PC are
InterBase had two-phase commits ages ago, Firebird inherited it.
If there's anything specific you want to know, ask
I *am* asking — where is the specific piece of documentation?
On two-phase commits? I guess it's the IB 6 docs where you have
to read that, or get a copy of Helen Borries
Em Wed, 01 Nov 2006 09:34:05 -0600, mos escreveu:
At 05:56 AM 11/1/2006, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA wrote:
Always use a DBMS, and MySQL is no (proper) DBMS without a
transactional backend. There are InnoDB, which is not completely free (needs
a proprietary backup tool);
Always use a DBMS, and MySQL is no (proper) DBMS without a
transactional backend. There are InnoDB, which is not completely free
(needs
a proprietary backup tool); BDB, which is deprecated until further
notices;
and SolidDB, which is still β.
Ok, so your solution is to use
At 08:32 AM 11/2/2006, you wrote:
Always use a DBMS, and MySQL is no (proper) DBMS without a
transactional backend. There are InnoDB, which is not completely free
(needs
a proprietary backup tool); BDB, which is deprecated until further
notices;
and SolidDB, which is still β.
Is there a better open source database out there for that amount of
data?
Several. MySQLâ?Ts own MaxDB, PostgreSQL, Firebird if you are
into
Borland stuff, Ingres if you need XA distributed transactions.
Firebird isn't Borland :-)
I usually recommend PostgreSQL, or Ingres if
Em Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:32:06 +0100, Martijn Tonies escreveu:
Several. MySQL’s own MaxDB, PostgreSQL, Firebird if you are into
Borland stuff, Ingres if you need XA distributed transactions.
Firebird isn't Borland
Granted. But it is (even more) attractive if you are already a
Several. MySQL’s own MaxDB, PostgreSQL, Firebird if you are into
Borland stuff, Ingres if you need XA distributed transactions.
Firebird isn't Borland
Granted. But it is (even more) attractive if you are already a Borland
shop.
I usually recommend PostgreSQL, or Ingres if
On 11/2/06, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA wrote:
Em Wed, 01 Nov 2006 09:34:05 -0600, mos escreveu:
Is there a better open source database out there for that amount of data?
Several. MySQL's own MaxDB, PostgreSQL, Firebird if you are into
Borland stuff, Ingres if you need XA
Em Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:30:14 +0100, Martijn Tonies escreveu:
Falcon has a transactional storage engine, including Foreign
Keys (Jim wouldn't do a database without em)
Obviouſly.
MGA
Ma ze?
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA +55 (11) 9406 7191 (cel)
Administrador
Em Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:40:44 +0100, Martijn Tonies escreveu:
InterBase had two-phase commits ages ago, Firebird inherited it.
If there's anything specific you want to know, ask
I *am* asking — where is the specific piece of documentation?
Because if you don’t read MySQL’s
Em Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:24:44 -0500, Francis escreveu:
MyISAM vs InnoDB ? What is the best to use
Always use a DBMS, and MySQL is no (proper) DBMS without a transactional
backend. There are InnoDB, which is not completely free (needs a proprietary
backup tool); BDB, which is deprecated
At 07:56 AM 11/1/2006, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA wrote:
snip .. further notices; and SolidDB, which
is still β.
Choose your evil.
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA +55 (11) 9406 7191 (cel)
Administrador de (Bases de) Dados +55 (11) 2122 0302 (com)
Miles Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:56 AM 11/1/2006, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA wrote:
snip .. further notices; and SolidDB, which
is still β.
Help this poor English-speaker - what's the symbol you use to describe
SolidDB?
I assume it is a beta character, since
On Nov 1, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
wrote:
Em Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:24:44 -0500, Francis escreveu:
MyISAM vs InnoDB ? What is the best to use
Always use a DBMS, and MySQL is no (proper) DBMS without a
transactional
backend. There are InnoDB, which is not
At 05:56 AM 11/1/2006, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA wrote:
Em Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:24:44 -0500, Francis escreveu:
MyISAM vs InnoDB ? What is the best to use
Always use a DBMS, and MySQL is no (proper) DBMS without a
transactional
backend. There are InnoDB, which is not
MyISAM vs InnoDB ? What is the best to use
Always use a DBMS, and MySQL is no (proper) DBMS without a
transactional
backend. There are InnoDB, which is not completely free (needs a
proprietary
backup tool); BDB, which is deprecated until further notices; and SolidDB,
which
is still
If you are do this in MySQL 5, try this:
ALTER TABLE table-name ENGINE = InnoDB;
That's all.
Let MySQL worry about conversion.
You may also want to tweek the innodb
system variables (show variables like 'innodb%)
for better InnoDB performance prior to trying this.
- Original Message -
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:05 AM
To: Mikhail Berman
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: MyISAM to InnoDB conversion help
If you are do this in MySQL 5, try this:
ALTER TABLE table-name ENGINE = InnoDB;
That's all.
Let MySQL worry about conversion.
You may
Francis wrote:
Question about MyISAM vs InnoDB ? What is the best to use, I have
a large table contain around 10 millons of records. What is the best
for me ? Use MyISAM or InnoDB ?
Depends VERY much on your application. If any concurrency and/or
durability is required then I would
Francis wrote:
Question about MyISAM vs InnoDB ? What is the best to use, I have
a large table contain around 10 millons of records. What is the best
for me ? Use MyISAM or InnoDB ?
Depends VERY much on your application. If any concurrency and/or
durability is required then I would
-0500 US/Eastern
Subject: RE: MyISAM to InnoDB conversion help
Hi Rolando,
Thank you for your help.
I am on MySQL 5, and I have tried to do the conversion using ALTER TABLE
command. With the same very slow result.
Do you by any chance have specific suggestions how to tweak variables
related
Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mikhail Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 11:24:00 AM GMT-0500 US/Eastern
Subject: Re: MyISAM to InnoDB conversion help
Check these variable
bulk_insert_buffer_size (Default usually 8M)
innodb_buffer_pool_size (Default
Great,
Thank you for your help Rolando,
Mikhail Berman
-Original Message-
From: Rolando Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:41 AM
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com; Mikhail Berman
Subject: Re: MyISAM to InnoDB conversion help
I just noticed your
At 09:35 AM 11/1/2006, Martijn Tonies wrote:
MyISAM vs InnoDB ? What is the best to use
Always use a DBMS, and MySQL is no (proper) DBMS without a
transactional
backend. There are InnoDB, which is not completely free (needs a
proprietary
backup tool); BDB, which is deprecated until
On 11/1/06, mos wrote:
Sure, I've thought of those too. But has anyone gotten Firebird to
store 700-800gb tables? Can you split Firebird's .gdb file across drives?
The main problem with tables of that size is maintaining the index. My
upper limit for MySQL is 100 million rows. After
At 02:27 PM 11/1/2006, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
On 11/1/06, mos wrote:
Sure, I've thought of those too. But has anyone gotten Firebird to
store 700-800gb tables? Can you split Firebird's .gdb file across drives?
The main problem with tables of that size is maintaining the index. My
On 11/1/06, mos wrote:
At 02:27 PM 11/1/2006, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
What is the big deal of a TB? Now, if you get past 20 TB you might
want to team up with one of the commercial PostgreSQL supporters
(Fujitsu, EnterpriseDB, Greenplum etc.), but Sun even sells appliances
for 100 TB
Hello,
Although the number of records is a consideration to weigh in your decision,
there are many other (perhaps more important) factors to consider.
For example, do you need foreign keys? transactions? row-level locks?...then
InnoDB is your choice.
Perhaps with more details concerning the
Lakshmi wrote:
Hi,
I want to know is there any difference between myisam primary index vs
innodb primary index...
One's for a myisam table one's for an innodb table.
They are treated exactly the same - both are unique, both have indexes.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives:
Hi Lakshmi ,
I guess both treated same . But physical structure of storage is
different from Myisam and Innodb .
Correct me if iam wrong .
Lakshmi wrote:
Hi,
I want to know is there any difference between myisam primary index vs
innodb primary index...
--
MySQL General Mailing List
1 - 100 of 248 matches
Mail list logo
