Am 28.05.2014 22:39, schrieb Rajeev Prasad:
> (re-sending, i got err from yahoo)
your previous message made it off-list to me
*don't use reply-all on mailing lists*
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
(re-sending, i got err from yahoo)
thx Reindl,
I am using phpMyAdmin, i looked closely and found "index" is this index you are
talking about? (earlier i used "Primary").
My further question is: the index key here is going to be epoch system time. I
currently have it as integer 10. The table wi
Am 28.05.2014 22:29, schrieb Rajeev Prasad:
> I am using phpMyAdmin, i looked closely and found "index" is this index you
> are talking about? (earlier i used "Primary").
surely
primary is a uniqe key, honestly consider to read some manuals
> My further question is: the index key here is goin
Am 28.05.2014 21:43, schrieb Rajeev Prasad:
> I am going to have a big table with lot of records, to expedite searching i
> wanted to index on a key field (which is numeric value). BUT, there will be
> records which will have same value for the key field (other columns will be
> different).
>
Possibly worse than that, since it will rebuild the 'first' index again.
> -Original Message-
> From: mos [mailto:mo...@fastmail.fm]
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 7:51 AM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: Indexing about 40 Billion Entries
>
> A
Hi,
thanks for the hint, I was testing the settings for the
myisam_sort_buffer_size so I totally forgot it.
But I have another three of these databases to do, so next time I do it
with one ALTER statement
Christian
Am 21.06.2012 16:50, schrieb mos:
At 02:04 AM 6/21/2012, you wrote:
Thank yo
At 02:04 AM 6/21/2012, you wrote:
Thank you a lot. The first indexing process finished after about 13
hours, so I think the problem is solved now.
I set the myisam_sort_bufffer_size to 10GB.
The "first indexing process"???
You should have created all of your indexes with one Alter statement.
On 20/06/2012 11:45, Christian Koetteritzsch wrote:
Hi guys,
As the title says I'm trying to index 40 billion entries with two indexes on a
server with 16 cores and 128GB RAM. The table is the one below and it is a
myisam table. The *.myd file is about 640GB
Hiya
I am unable to help. But
where PARTITION shines. (I have not seen such [yet] in your application.)
-Original Message-
From: Christian Koetteritzsch [mailto:ckoetteritz...@e-humanities.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:42 PM
To: Rick James
Cc: Ananda Kumar; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Indexing about 40
use
cases where PARTITION shines. (I have not seen such [yet] in your application.)
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Koetteritzsch [mailto:ckoetteritz...@e-humanities.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:42 PM
> To: Rick James
> Cc: Ananda Kumar; mysql@lists.mysql.co
(ruid1, ruid2) will help for AND, but not at all for OR.
> -Original Message-
> From: Shawn Green [mailto:shawn.l.gr...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:30 PM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: Indexing about 40 Billion Entries
>
> On 6/20/20
On 6/20/2012 5:45 AM, Christian Koetteritzsch wrote:
Hi guys,
As the title says I'm trying to index 40 billion entries with two
indexes on a server with 16 cores and 128GB RAM. The table is the one
below and it is a myisam table. The *.myd file is about 640GB
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `l4_link`;
CRE
ul. If you have more
questions than you can ask them.
Kind regards
Christian
-Original Message-
From: Ananda Kumar [mailto:anan...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:37 AM
To: Christian Koetteritzsch
Cc:mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Indexing about 40 Billion Entries
looks
in common.
I hope the informations I gave you are helpful. If you have more
questions than you can ask them.
Kind regards
Christian
-Original Message-
From: Ananda Kumar [mailto:anan...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:37 AM
To: Christian Koetteritzsch
Cc:mysql@lists.mysql.
static?
What are the semantics of the fields?
> -Original Message-
> From: Ananda Kumar [mailto:anan...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:37 AM
> To: Christian Koetteritzsch
> Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: Indexing about 40 Billion Entries
>
&g
looks like the value that you give for myisam_max_sort_size is not enough
for the index creation and hence it doing a "REPAIR WITH KEYCACHE"
Use the below query to set the min values required for myisam_max_sort_size
to avoid "repair with keycache"
select
a.index_name as index_name,
Thanks Gavin and Joerg, that was very helpful!
-- Jonas
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Joerg Bruehe wrote:
> Hi Neil, all!
>
>
> Tompkins Neil wrote:
> > So if you have individual indexes for example field_1, field_2 and
> field_3
> > etc and then perform a search like
> >
> > WHERE field_1 =
> -Original Message-
>> From: Tompkins Neil [mailto:neil.tompk...@googlemail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 8:54 AM
>> To: Joerg Bruehe
>> Cc: [MySQL]
>> Subject: Re: Indexing question
>>
>> Jörg
>>
>> Thanks for the usef
ssage-
From: Tompkins Neil [mailto:neil.tompk...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 8:54 AM
To: Joerg Bruehe
Cc: [MySQL]
Subject: Re: Indexing question
Jörg
Thanks for the useful reply. Maybe I can EXPLAIN my select queries
for you
to advise if any changes need to be made ?
Regards
: Re: Indexing question
Jörg
Thanks for the useful reply. Maybe I can EXPLAIN my select queries for you
to advise if any changes need to be made ?
Regards
Neil
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Joerg Bruehe wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> Neil Tompkins wrote:
> > Thanks for your reply. S
Jörg
Thanks for the useful reply. Maybe I can EXPLAIN my select queries for you
to advise if any changes need to be made ?
Regards
Neil
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Joerg Bruehe wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> Neil Tompkins wrote:
> > Thanks for your reply. So should we create individual indexes on each
Hi!
Neil Tompkins wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. So should we create individual indexes on each
> field or a multiple column index ??
This question cannot be answered without checking and measuring your
installation. The decision whether to create an index is always an act
of balancing:
- If t
Following on from my previous email I have columns containing numbers
which are then used in SUM and MIN/ MAX functions should these be
indexed too ?
On 3 Oct 2010, at 16:44, Joerg Bruehe wrote:
Hi Neil, all!
Tompkins Neil wrote:
So if you have individual indexes for example field_1, fie
Thanks for your reply. So should we create individual indexes on each
field or a multiple column index ??
On 3 Oct 2010, at 16:44, Joerg Bruehe wrote:
Hi Neil, all!
Tompkins Neil wrote:
So if you have individual indexes for example field_1, field_2 and
field_3
etc and then perform a s
Hi Neil, all!
Tompkins Neil wrote:
> So if you have individual indexes for example field_1, field_2 and field_3
> etc and then perform a search like
>
> WHERE field_1 = 10
> AND field_3 = 'abc'
>
> This wouldn't improve the search ? You have to create a index for all
> possible combined field
So if you have individual indexes for example field_1, field_2 and field_3
etc and then perform a search like
WHERE field_1 = 10
AND field_3 = 'abc'
This wouldn't improve the search ? You have to create a index for all
possible combined field searches ?
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Gavin T
You can't use an index to select records in a range, and order them. The order
by will cause a filesort in that case.
Additionally indexes are always read left to right. So an index on ('user_id',
'product_id') will help when doing WHERE user_id=N AND product_id IN (1,2,3),
but wouldn't help
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
, however, that my key_buffer_size is 8GB.
>
>That indexing operation finally finished after about 1.5 hours; that was
>about 0.5 hours ago. Now I am on to other things. Here is the status
you
>suggested:
>
> [SNIP]
>
>Thanks,
>Mike Spreitzer
>
>
>
>mos
>
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
Hi Walter,
Walter Heck - OlinData.com wrote:
Hey Tim, all
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Little,
Timothy wrote:
Why, you might ask, index on physmessage_id? Because then the db won't
have to do a fetch on items from the table since it's in the INDEX
itself, saving any unnecessary reads.
F
After a few off-list e-mails with Tim, I issued
ALTER TABLE dbmail_messageblks ADD INDEX ( blocksize AND physmessage_id );
which took almost 11 hours to index. Once done, however, my select
statement went from a hair over 50 minutes to 15 seconds. (1.69 seconds
after the index was cached.)
Wow
>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
Hey Tim, all
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Little,
Timothy wrote:
> Why, you might ask, index on physmessage_id? Because then the db won't
> have to do a fetch on items from the table since it's in the INDEX
> itself, saving any unnecessary reads.
FYI: That only holds true for InnoDB, not for
To answer your questions in no particular order, YES you can speed it up
with indexing.
You might want to first create an index on ( blocksize AND
physmessage_id ).
Why, you might ask, index on physmessage_id? Because then the db won't
have to do a fetch on items from the table since it's in the
More details.
CREATE TABLE mailer_student_status (
student_id decimal(22,0) NOT NULL default '0',
param varchar(128) NOT NULL default '',
value varchar(128) default NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (student_id,param).
KEY idx_value (value)
)
SELECT VALUE
FROM mailer_student_status
WHERE student_id
Hi,
Well at first glance its hard to tell since "param" and "value" don't
say a lot about the nature of the data.
If this is innodb, you can have a PRIMARY KEY of student_id (assuming
its unique) and a separate index on param, this is because of the way
innodb is structure, the primary key is alwa
We'd need more information on what the where clauses of the queries
look like to assist with this.
-Aaron
On 9/5/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What would you say about the below table . What can i do to make it more
> efficient.
>
> CREATE TABLE mailer_student
Hi,
What would you say about the below table . What can i do to make it more
efficient.
CREATE TABLE mailer_student_status (
student_id decimal(22,0) NOT NULL default '0',
param varchar(128) NOT NULL default '',
value varchar(128) default NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (student_id,param).
KEY idx_va
Hi,
Following on from what Mike mentioned, indexing all columns does not
really help as MySQL will at most use one index for a query, so its
important to pick your indexes carefully and consider constructing
composite indexes. An index on a single column may not even be used
due to poor cardinalit
As your table grows your inserts will start to get slower and slower. You
run into the issue of locking a table due to re-creating the indexes. Also
wasted space for indexes
On 9/5/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am looking for, is there any specific re
The field has up to 1000 characters, usually well over 255. It is
searched constantly (2-3 times every second). The smallint values are
scanned up to 40 times a second. So, are you saying that the entire
MYI file is dumped into the keycache? If so, your suggestion to create
a separate table with PK
What is the size of the text field you're fulltext indexing? How often is
that index used? You might be best off to create a table containing only
that column and a PK that is equal to the PK in the original table. You
might also keep a portion of the text field (say 50 characters) in the
original
Garris, Nicole wrote:
Is id a sequential number? And is it referenced by other tables? If
so, and if over time new products become "old" products, then CASE 2
is more complex, because when moving a product (i.e., a row) from the
new product table to the old product table, the value of id needs to
Is id a sequential number? And is it referenced by other tables? If so,
and if over time new products become "old" products, then CASE 2 is more
complex, because when moving a product (i.e., a row) from the new
product table to the old product table, the value of id needs to stay
the same. So for C
>
>, as far as i can see, from mysql 5.0 and upper it is possible create
>index using functions.
>
>http://www.faqs.org/docs/ppbook/r24254.htm
>
>But i keep having problems with the exemple from the link. Is there any bug
>in mysql 5.0.24a-log?
The above website says:
"Practical PostgreSQL"
, as far as i can see, from mysql 5.0 and upper it is possible create
index using functions.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/ppbook/r24254.htm
But i keep having problems with the exemple from the link. Is there any bug
in mysql 5.0.24a-log?
2007/11/13, Martijn Tonies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>mysql>
>mysql> create index AA on precalc (IDR(P1,P4,P6,P7,P9,'HLA-DRB13'));
>
>But i Get the following error:
>
>ERROR 1064 (42000): You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual
>that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use
>near ''P1','P4','P6','P7','P9','HLA-DRB1
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hi,
Afan Pasalic wrote:
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hi Afan,
Afan Pasalic wrote:
hi,
if I have column order_id(int(4)) null do I have to index it too.
I'm going to use it ONLY for sorting records.
It depends a lot on how much data is in the table, etc etc. An
index will
Hi,
Afan Pasalic wrote:
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hi Afan,
Afan Pasalic wrote:
hi,
if I have column order_id(int(4)) null do I have to index it too. I'm
going to use it ONLY for sorting records.
It depends a lot on how much data is in the table, etc etc. An index
will make sorting more effi
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hi Afan,
Afan Pasalic wrote:
hi,
if I have column order_id(int(4)) null do I have to index it too. I'm
going to use it ONLY for sorting records.
It depends a lot on how much data is in the table, etc etc. An index
will make sorting more efficient in the general case
Hi Afan,
Afan Pasalic wrote:
hi,
if I have column order_id(int(4)) null do I have to index it too. I'm
going to use it ONLY for sorting records.
It depends a lot on how much data is in the table, etc etc. An index will make sorting
more efficient in the general case when you have a decent a
In the last episode (Jan 06), Himanshu Raina said:
> I am facing a peculiar problem.When i execute a query on slave server
> it doesn't use indexes that have been created and hence read all the
> records present in that table.The same query when execute on Master
> yields proper results.The table s
Hello.
> What's the reason behind this?
If you're asking about why I've written that columns defined as NOT NULL
are faster - I've read it in one of the articles from dev.mysql.com.
I'm not sure about the true reason, but the way MySQL stores NULLs
is strongly dependent on the storage engi
Gleb Paharenko wrote:
I'm not giving an exact answer on your question, however, it might be
interesting for you. Usually queries are faster if you define the column as NOT
NULL.
What's the reason behind this? NULL 'values' are a bit of strange
phenomenon. In the EXPLAIN output a query with WH
Hello.
I'm not giving an exact answer on your question, however, it might be
interesting for you. Usually queries are faster if you define the column as NOT
NULL.
Lefteris Tsintjelis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is better/faster to insert as a value for indexed fields, in case of
> 0 or Null
Sajith A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/24/2005 02:07:22 AM:
> Thank you Mathias once again
> > I suggest you to test after optimize table ... and analyze table ...
> > if you stay with the problem and you can give me a set of data,
> i'll try to help
> > more.
> Initially while posting... i
Sajith A wrote:
Thank you Clark for your time
Try using straight joins to force MySQL to join from qb_test_result first.
The order chosen by the optimizer has no use for keys from this table.
I tried to force indexes.. but it didn't help
Thank you
Since the query you supplied cann
Thank you Clark for your time
> Try using straight joins to force MySQL to join from qb_test_result first.
> The order chosen by the optimizer has no use for keys from this table.
I tried to force indexes.. but it didn't help
Thank you
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.
Thank you Mathias once again
> I suggest you to test after optimize table ... and analyze table ...
> if you stay with the problem and you can give me a set of data, i'll try to
> help
> more.
Initially while posting... i tried to reduce one table to avoid
complexity from the actual query. I'm
Selon Michael Stassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The PK is not used, nor should it be. Look at the EXPLAIN output.
Hi,
i hate the confusion people do between the primary key and the automatic index
on the PK.
Primary key is a generic concept for all databases. It assumes unicity and
managed data ins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
have you created an index on (id, testId) ?
i can't see the other indexes ? The only ones are the PK and testStudent, so the
PK is used.
The PK is not used, nor should it be. Look at the EXPLAIN output.
Let me rewrite the query with explicit joins, and reformat i
Sajith A wrote:
EXPLAIN SELECT qb_test_result.id resultId, qb_question.testId AS
testId, qb_test.title testName, qb_question.marks, qb_test.passrate,
qb_test_result.marks testMark, qb_test_result.percentage
testPercentage, qb_test_result.startTime, qb_test_result.endTime,
qb_test_result.status
Hi Sajith,
I tried to recreate you tables and do some tests, but i don't have significant
data. So i don't take your explain plan.
I suggest you to test after optimize table ... and analyze table ...
if you stay with the problem and you can give me a set of data, i'll try to help
more.
Mathias
S
Thank you Mathias for your time...
> have you created an index on (id, testId) ?
> i can't see the other indexes ? The only ones are the PK and testStudent, so
> the
> PK is used.
Yes i also tried that .. but it was not getting used.. it listed as
the possible_keys "PRIMARY" and "testStudent" but
Hi,
have you created an index on (id, testId) ?
i can't see the other indexes ? The only ones are the PK and testStudent, so the
PK is used.
Mathias
Selon Sajith A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I was trying to analyze a query that was taking almost 4 seconds to
> execute. While trying to create additio
Hello.
Here is the answer from Ingo:
"It is even worse. The old index stays in place, but will never be used
again. ENABLE INDEX creates a new index from scratch. See Bug#4692 -
DISABLE/ENABLE KEYS waste a space."
roi h <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Another question, to
I would increase your myisam_sort_buffer_size considerably just for
this operation. You've got your key_buffer set high, but your sort
buffer is comparatively low for creating a big index.
One way you can tell how far along the index is, is to look at how
quickly the index file is growing and
Thanks Tom and Michael,
I got rid of all of the indexes except the one marked "PRIMARY" and a
new one that I made like this:
ALTER TABLE logs ADD unique (host,date,time,priority,facility,seq);
I see quite an improvement from what I was seeing before. The one
thing that I didn't realize is that
> >>Do I need to make a special index to index time on HOUR?
> Is it even
> >>possible?
> >
> > I believe the index on time will work for this.
>
> No, it won't. At least, not with the query as is:
>
>SELECT * FROM logs
>WHERE host IN ('10.20.254.5')
> AND date='2005-02-03'
>
Tom Crimmins wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Brad Guillory
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 18:15
mysql> EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM logs WHERE host in
('10.20.254.5') and
date='2005-02-03' and HOUR(time) between '16' and '17'
ORDER BY seq DESC;
ALTER TABLE logs ADD unique (host,dat
> -Original Message-
> From: Brad Guillory
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 18:15
>
> Please be gentle, I have nearly no experience with SQL
> databases. I am
> not subscribed to the list so please cc me on replies.
>
> Because my email client probably did horrable things to this
Your key_buffer_size and sort_buffer_size configuration variables play
a role in the speed of your indexes, including creation and
modification. If these are set low, creating an index can be pretty
slow. 43 minutes seems like and extremely long time to create an index
on only 160K records. It
Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
Can anyone tell me why this makes sense? I have a SELECT which uses an indexed
datetime field called Start with a BETWEEN range. If I select on this with no
LIMIT, it does a full scan of the 9391282 records in the DB (key=NULL).
However, if I do a limit of any value LESS
Hello.
See:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/LIMIT_optimization.html
>
>"Jeremiah Gowdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can anyone tell me why this makes sense? I have a SELECT which uses an
>indexed datetime
>field called Start with a BETWEEN range. If I select on this with no LIMIT,
IF you have a version of MySQL that is recent enough (4.0+) you can merge
your two queries *when you run them* by using the UNION predicate.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/UNION.html
Much better than a client-side merge.
Shawn Green
Database Administrator
Unimin Corporation - Spruce Pine
"D
Thanks for the suggestions over the weekend! I will be looking in to
this in a few days - for now I think I am just going to have to re-write
my PHP script to make 2 separate queries and array_merge() them - which
invariably seems to solve "OR" problems. But there should be a better
way, no?
-Da
At 06:03 PM 10/1/2004, you wrote:
Wondering if anyone can give me advice on indexing for OR clauses.
I have a table with a number of fields, two of which are sender_id and
receiver_id. I also have a query such as this:
SELECT ...
WHERE (sender_id = 98765 OR reciever_id = 98765)
The query is OK for
> -Original Message-
> From: Harald Fuchs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 30 September 2004 12:16
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Indexing problem with UTF8 in 4.1.4?
>
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Kevin Cowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kevin Cowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I knew why I wouldn't be asking. Now by our reconing the key of the
> fields is 343 bytes, encoding in UTF8 makes that key 343 bytes Not 1000
> since under utf8 each character is encode in 8 bits.
What makes you think s
Kevin Cowley
R&D
Tel: 0118 902 9099 (direct line)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://www.alchemetrics.co.uk
> -Original Message-
> From: gerald_clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 29 September 2004 17:29
> To: Kevin Cowley
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject
Kevin Cowley wrote:
Running 4.1.4 with a database that has a default encoding of UTF8
If we execute the following we get an error.
CREATE TABLE idxbe_resident (
urn INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
keyAddress_Part1 CHAR(5) BINARY NOT NULL,
dataPerson_Name CHAR(60),
dataAddress_Part1 CHAR(140),
dataAddress_P
> I have a table that has a few short text fields [text(4000), text(1000)]
> I would like to index. Do you think it is a good idea to index them
> "simply", or is it better if I create auxilary fields which hold the MD5
> for the text fields and index those? Would that be faster?
Try 'Fulltext
On Friday 11 June 2004 07:00 am, Fagyal, Csongor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a table that has a few short text fields
> [text(4000), text(1000)] I would like to index. Do
> you think it is a good idea to index them "simply",
> or is it better if I create auxilary fields which
> hold the MD5 for the tex
On Friday, June 11, 2004, 7:00:39 AM, Csongor wrote:
FC> Hi,
FC> I have a table that has a few short text fields [text(4000), text(1000)]
FC> I would like to index. Do you think it is a good idea to index them
FC> "simply", or is it better if I create auxilary fields which hold the MD5
FC> for th
John Mistler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know this is an elementary question, but I am getting two sets of
> instructions from different MySQL manuals about setting an index on a prefix
> of a column of a table. One says to use:
>
> KEY indexName (colName(length))
>
> and the other says to us
Hi John,
- Original Message -
From: "John Mistler"
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 12:50 AM
Subject: Indexing
> I know this is an elementary question, but I am getting two sets of
> instructions from different MySQL manuals about setting an index on a
prefix
> of a column of a table. One say
nothing over 20mill for records.
Chris.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 5:47 PM
To: Chris Fossenier
Cc: 'Peter Zaitsev'; 'MySQL List'
Subject: RE: Indexing Woes
These files will be created in the /tm
;<<<<<<<<<<
On 2/11/04, 5:42:31 PM, Chris Fossenier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
regarding RE: Indexing Woes:
> None of my individual tables are larger than 12GB, however, I have no
idea
> if MySQL creates a separate TMP file for each indexing
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 5:13 PM
To: Chris Fossenier
Cc: 'Peter Zaitsev'; 'MySQL List'
Subject: RE: Indexing Woes
If I am reading your parameter correctly, MySQL will limit the size of
the temporary file created to 30GB. If the file exce
;>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 2/11/04, 4:54:21 PM, Chris Fossenier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
regarding RE: Indexing Woes:
> Can you provide a better explanation of these variables? I have yet to
find
>
al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 4:50 PM
To: Chris Fossenier
Cc: 'Peter Zaitsev'; 'MySQL List'
Subject: RE: Indexing Woes
Performing your indexing in one batch will create a temp table only once
as opposed t
his to?
> - my machine is dedicated to MySQL
> Thanks.
> Chris.
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Zaitsev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:03 PM
> To: Chris Fossenier
> Cc: 'MySQL List'
> Subject: Re: Indexing Woes
&
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
