On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 08:39:03PM +0200, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote:
>
> Hm. From vmstat output it looks like the second query is disk-bound on
> writing. Most probably writing temporary table(s) as EXPLAIN tells so
> (compare http://www.mysql.com/doc/E/X/EXPLAIN.html).
Agreed.
[snip]
> Well, t
Hi.
Well, your are right, indexes are not used at all, so ignore
everything about key_buffer and indexes I said, regarding this issue
(but key_buffer=16MG seems small with 1GB anyhow ;-)
Depending on how often you need the query, and how much columns are
involved, you may want to consider to add
Benjamin Pflugmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello.
>
> First, key_buffer=16M seems a bit low for me with 13 million rows
> (well, depends on the indexes, and how much free memory you have, of
> course).
1 gig, plenty free.
> If I am not mistaken, sort_buffer/tmp_table_size are the one mo
Hello.
First, key_buffer=16M seems a bit low for me with 13 million rows
(well, depends on the indexes, and how much free memory you have, of
course).
If I am not mistaken, sort_buffer/tmp_table_size are the one mostly
needed for this query, I think. Btw, you can get more info about the
query wi
