hi,
you didn't speakabout your tuning work on the databases with only one machine.
Have you done such work with the indexation part for best performance ?
I can tell you that several databases with about 40 Go for all is not huge.
but if you want look at some linux clustering solutions like openm
At 05:32 PM 6/22/2005, you wrote:
Hi,
I use MySQL for years with very much respect of it's stability and
performance.
But in these years one of my servers has grown to several hundreds of
databases with approximately 50 tables in each of the databases.
Some of these database have tables cont
Yes, you need to change your query for optimal speed. Prior to 5.0.0, mysql
chooses the best index to use, one per table. Your indexes don't help for
this query, because no one index does the job. Why? Because you are
selecting on one column OR another column. If you are using at least mysq
> Thanks, but this is not what we expected. This means
> to change the SQL command in the application. Our
> understanding from the manual and other relational DBs
> is that, it's suffice for existence of an index on the
> field in the criteria (where clause) to run at optimal
> speed.
You'll pr
Thanks, but this is not what we expected. This means
to change the SQL command in the application. Our
understanding from the manual and other relational DBs
is that, it's suffice for existence of an index on the
field in the criteria (where clause) to run at optimal
speed.
regards
--- Harald
What would you expect?
You ask for the whole file, and then ask
that it be sorted by two fields.
How do you expect this to happen without a temp file?
Tiago Antao wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have a very simple query
> SELECT a, b FROM t ORDER BY a, b
> I also have an index on t(a)
> I have run ANALYZE
>
Tim Ward
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 12 July 2002 11:17
> To: Tim Ward
> Subject: Re: RE: SELECT performance
>
>
> Your message cannot be posted because it appe
Hi.
I am not sure what you compare against, because the description of the
second test script is not clear to me in the given context.
Anyhow, the difference probably comes from the fact, that MySQL has to
use indexes to find the row which matches to the id and has to access
about log(65000) =~
