杨涛涛
*Stop top posting.*
*
*
*thanks.*
*
*
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:16 AM, 杨涛涛 wrote:
> Hi.
> I think if there are not some concurrency visitors, you should not use it.
> Otherwise, just put it.
> David Yeung, In China, Beijing.
> My First Blog:http://yueliangdao0608.cublog.cn
> My
Hi.
I think if there are not some concurrency visitors, you should not use it.
Otherwise, just put it.
David Yeung, In China, Beijing.
My First Blog:http://yueliangdao0608.cublog.cn
My Second Blog:http://yueliangdao0608.blog.51cto.com
My Msn: yueliangdao0...@gmail.com
2010/12/1 Wagner Bianchi
I'll provide it to, bear with me, pls...
Best regards.
--
WB
2010/11/30 Johan De Meersman
> Interesting, but I feel the difference is rather small - could you rerun
> with, say, 50.000 queries ? Also, different concurrency levels (1, 100)
> might be interesting to see.
>
> Yes, I'm to lazy to
Interesting, but I feel the difference is rather small - could you rerun
with, say, 50.000 queries ? Also, different concurrency levels (1, 100)
might be interesting to see.
Yes, I'm to lazy to do it myself, what did you think :-p
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Wagner Bianchi
wrote:
> Friends,
Friends, I did a benchmark regarding to this subject.
Please, I am considering your comments.
=> http://wbianchi.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/insert-x-insert-delayed/
Best regards.
--
WB
2010/11/30 Wagner Bianchi
> Maybe, the table in use must be a table that is inside cache now - SHOW
> OPEN TABL
Maybe, the table in use must be a table that is inside cache now - SHOW OPEN
TABLES, controlled by table_cache, I mean.
Well, if the amount of data trasactioned is too small as a simple INSERT,
you don't have to be worried, I suggest. If you partition the table, we must
a benchmark to know the per
I would assume that it's slower because it gets put on the delay thread
anyway, and thus executes only whenever that thread gets some attention. I'm
not sure wether there are other influencing factors.
I should also think that "not in use" in this context means "not locked
against inserts", so the
What I'm confused by though, is this line.
"Note that INSERT DELAYED is slower than a normal INSERT if the table is not
otherwise in use." What's the definition of "in use"? Does a logging table
do that given that it's pretty much append-only/write-only?
Waynn
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:19 PM,
No, I think it's a good idea to do INSERT DELAYED here - it's only logging
application, and it's generally more important to not slow down the
application for that. It's only ever into a single table, so there's only
going to be a single delay thread for it anyway.
Archive tables are a good idea,
Well, analyze if you need to create an excessive overhead into the MySQL
Server because a simple INSERT. What you must have a look is it:
- How much data this connection is delivering to MySQL's handlers?
- A word DELAYED in this case is making MySQL surfer?
Perhaps, you are sophisticating
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Nelson [mailto:dnel...@allantgroup.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 2:26 PM
> To: Daevid Vincent
> Cc: 'MySQL'
> Subject: Re: INSERT DELAYED and created_on timestamps
>
> In the last episode (Sep 29), Daevi
In the last episode (Sep 29), Daevid Vincent said:
> I'm doing some reading on INSERT DELAYED
> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/insert.html
>
> I have a user_log table:
>
> CREATE TABLE `user_log` (
> `id_user_log` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
> `id_user` int(10) unsign
I also have the same problem upgrading from 4.1.15 to 5.0.15; this query
hang mysql:
INSERT DELAYED INTO phpads_adstats SET clicks = 0, views = 1, day =
NOW(), hour = HOUR(NOW()), bannerid = '97', zoneid = '15', source = ''
This is happening with every linux mysql 5.0.15 binary distribuition
More queries yes but not more disk i/o. The first query will never touch
a disk.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/09/2005 12:56:59 PM:
How about something like this:
mysql> select @t := now();
+-+
| @t := now() |
+
Eric Bergen wrote:
How about something like this:
mysql> select @t := now();
+-+
| @t := now() |
+-+
| 2005-06-09 09:55:49 |
+-+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
if the timestamp is not needed on the client with :
mysql> do @t := now(
Eric Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/09/2005 12:56:59 PM:
> How about something like this:
> mysql> select @t := now();
> +-+
> | @t := now() |
> +-+
> | 2005-06-09 09:55:49 |
> +-+
> 1 row in set (0.00 sec)
> mysql> inse
How about something like this:
mysql> select @t := now();
+-+
| @t := now() |
+-+
| 2005-06-09 09:55:49 |
+-+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> insert delayed into t set t = @t;
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec)
mysql> select *
On 6/9/05, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
> >
> > Does this seem to break SQL / application logic in some fashion?
>
> >Not worse then it is currently broken :)
> >
> >According to the SQL standard CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, which in MySQL is a
> >synonym for NOW(), is supposed to have a value that does not change
I am proposing that when a query is received by MySQL, a timestamp could
be taken immediately, and that timestamp could travel with the query until
it is actually processed. For delayed inserts, the query would still sit
in the insert queue, and it would still say NOW(), but when the query
fin
On 6/9/05, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
>
> I am proposing that when a query is received by MySQL, a timestamp could be
> taken immediately, and that timestamp could travel with the query until it is
> actually processed. For delayed inserts, the query would still sit in the
> insert queue, and it wo
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Smelser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: INSERT DELAYED and NOW()
On Thursday 09 June 2005 09:39 am, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
I am proposing that when a query is received by MySQL, a timestamp
On Thursday 09 June 2005 09:39 am, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
> I am proposing that when a query is received by MySQL, a timestamp could be
> taken immediately, and that timestamp could travel with the query until it
> is actually processed. For delayed inserts, the query would still sit in
> the inse
Hi.
Send us information about operating sytem and MySQL version you use.
May be it will be helpful to install official binaries with enabled debug support of
the
latest release.
>I am using "INSERT DELAYED ..." to insert log records into a MyISAM table. Recently
>these
>inserts have
At 12:22 -0700 10/13/04, John McCaskey wrote:
I verified the same error for myself, and then found:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=5777
Sounds like the documentation is just wrong, and it is not supported for
innodb period.
John
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:53 -0700, Daniel Cummings wrote:
Does "Ins
Thanks for verifying that.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: John McCaskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:23 PM
To: Daniel Cummings
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Insert Delayed
I verified the same error for myself, and then found:
http://bugs.mysql.com
What analysis are you performing which causes you to conclude that nothing
is being delayed? I'd probably check this by creating an insert...select
which takes at least a few seconds to execute, and then have my test
application log the time, make the call to MySQL, and log the time again. I
suppo
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 08:53:27AM -0600, Rick Emery wrote:
> What happened when you tried this experiment?
I just did the following:
In one client connection, issued 'lock tables outgoing write'.
Then in another client connection, tried to do an 'insert delayed' without
specifying the timestam
What happened when you tried this experiment?
-Original Message-
From: Viraj Alankar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 8:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: insert delayed and timestamps
Hello,
When using 'insert delayed' syntax and there is a timestamp field in
On Thursday 01 March 2001 11:03, Artem Koutchine wrote:
> Sinisa, i thought i pointed out that mysql ALWAYS
> crashes on any single INSERT DELAY anytime,
> any database, under any conditions and during any
> weather. NO single INSERT DELAY can be executed
> successfully.
This looks like a bug in
Dave Hewlett wrote:
> To...
>
> I previously placed this as a comment on a seemingly similar situation.
> However no one noticed it. As it is a possible bug in mysql i have re-entered it.
>
> >
> > I had an experience the other day in a controlled test environment that appears
> > to be similar
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: INSERT DELAYED still keeps CRUSHING (trying everything)
> Artem Koutchine writes:
> > Hello again!
> >
> > In the prev episode i said that whe
Artem Koutchine writes:
> Hello again!
>
> In the prev episode i said that when i do INSERT DELAYED
> mysql just catches sig 11, crashes and restarts. No record
> inserted whatsoever. Nothing is written into the update log.
>
> Here is a sample (even though it says 1 row affected, it is
I am using 3.23.33.
I had posted a question asking for ways to improve my insert performance,
and I got a reply asking to use DELAYED.
I used it, but it seems like DELAYED takes twice the time a normal INSERT wud take.
Anything I am missing?
My table has 25 records and I am using DELETE FR
Hello,
Ord says :
> Next I tried to get a write lock on the table so that I could run the
> updates, but that made a huge mess - I could not obtain the lock.
I also have the same kind of problems while trying to RENAME a table when a
DELAYED INSERT is running.
I tried all the methods below and
34 matches
Mail list logo
