Thanks, it seems to be working now. I just discovered WITH ROLLUP. It made me
very
happy on this project...
On 2/8/12 2:54 AM, Arthur Fuller wrote:
I'm not sure your method isn't working, but try changing changing the to date part to
'2012-02-08' and see what you get.
HTH,
Arthur
--
I am having a problem with select results that I don't understand. It seems to
be tied up with a GROUP BY statement. Forgive the complexity of the SQL, I
inherited some problematic data structuring.
If I use this statement:
SELECT lu_rcode_bucket.bucket AS 'BUCKET',
CP_PKG.value
`idx_dtstamp` (`dt_stamp`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1
Now I need to select distict category from content_table of size 90Gb.
Simple select command can take days to complete I donot think creating
index on that column is a good idea.
Please let me know any ideas to do that.
Thanks
` (`dt_stamp`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1
Now I need to select distict category from content_table of size 90Gb.
Simple select command can take days to complete I donot think creating
index on that column is a good idea.
Please let me know any ideas to do that.
Thanks
:41 AM
Subject: Re: Select data from large tables
More than 20163845 rows are there and my application continuously
insert
data in the table.
daily i think there is a increase in 2.5 Gb in that table.
Thanks
--
Bier met grenadyn
Is als mosterd by den wyn
Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
; 2011/10/19 17:06 -0500, Basil Daoust
For me given the sample data the following worked.
The inner select says find all first messages, the outer says give me all
messages that are thus not first messages.
select * from table1 where messageID NOT IN (
select messageID from table1
group
2011/10/20 Halász Sándor h...@tbbs.net:
Well done--but
Although, it seems, it is everyone s experience that the desired order is the
order that MySQL yields, all guarantee of that is explicitly deny'd (look up
'GROUP BY'). It is better to be safe and to use MIN:
select * from table1
Assuming a table such this:
| ID | messageID | userID |
||-||
| 1 | 345 | 71 |
| 2 | 984 | 71 |
| 3 | 461 | 72 |
| 4 | 156 | 73 |
| 5 | 441 | 73 |
| 6 | 489 | 73 |
| 7 | 483 | 74 |
I'm afraid that what you are looking for simply cannot be done with MySQL
alone. You will need to pare your results at the application layer.
Remember that rows have no inherent order except for conforming to any
ORDER BY clause contained within the query.
- md
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:27
You could do a GROUP_CONCAT to get you close:
SELECT userID, SUBSTRING_INDEX(GROUP_CONCAT(messageID), ',', 1) messageList
FROM table
GROUP BY userID
| userID | messageList |
|--|---|
| 71| 984|
| 73| 441, 489|
| 74
For me given the sample data the following worked.
The inner select says find all first messages, the outer says give me all
messages that are thus not first messages.
select * from table1 where messageID NOT IN (
select messageID from table1
group by userID
)
Some times just playing
, and not something I need to run
everyday.
-- Derek Downey
On Oct 19, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Basil Daoust wrote:
For me given the sample data the following worked.
The inner select says find all first messages, the outer says give me all
messages that are thus not first messages.
select * from table1
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 00:06, Basil Daoust bdao...@lemonfree.com wrote:
For me given the sample data the following worked.
The inner select says find all first messages, the outer says give me all
messages that are thus not first messages.
select * from table1 where messageID
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 00:11, Derek Downey de...@orange-pants.com wrote:
Ah-hah! :)
Actually, I did something similar to that a month or so ago. I ran into a
speed limitation on a not-small database (~3mill rows). So be careful.
Luckily in my case, I put all the 'minimum' ids in a memory
time, so i'm not sure about this
but.. is the INSERT locked due to the SELECT queries that have been running
for so long? And are the rest of the selects (with 8s running time) locked
by the INSERT?
Yes, because MyISAM doesn't have a mechanism for keeping multiple concurrent
consistent views
/
any thoughts or help would be appricated.
thanks
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Eric Bergen eric.ber...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you run show processlist in another connection while the select
count(*) query is running and say what the state column is?
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Joey L mjh2
/
any thoughts or help would be appricated.
thanks
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Eric Bergen eric.ber...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you run show processlist in another connection while the select
count(*) query is running and say what the state column is?
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Joey L mjh2
with '.cnf', otherwise they'll be ignored.
#
!includedir /etc/mysql/conf.d/
any thoughts or help would be appricated.
thanks
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Eric Bergen eric.ber...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you run show processlist in another connection while the select
count(*) query is running
be ignored.
#
!includedir /etc/mysql/conf.d/
any thoughts or help would be appricated.
thanks
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Eric Bergen eric.ber...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you run show processlist in another connection while the select
count(*) query is running and say what the state column
...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you run show processlist in another connection while the select
count(*) query is running and say what the state column is?
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Joey L mjh2...@gmail.com wrote:
this is not a real query on the site - it is just a way i am measuring
performance on mysql
I keep finding it extremely peculiar that a count(*) on a MyISAM table would
take that long. InnoDB needs to effectively *count* the records, but MyISAM
keeps accurate statistics and can just read it from the metadata.
This suggests to me that not all your metadata (ie., table descriptors et
thanks for the response - but do not believe queries are the issue
because - Like I said - i have other websites doing the same exact
queries as I am doing on the site with the 9gig table.
Contrary to popular believe, size DOES matter... And having a table large
enough so it doesn't fit in
0.5/s1.48
Slow 10 s 68 0.0/s0.14 %DMS: 0.55 Log: OFF
DMS12.28k 8.2/s 24.46
SELECT 11.09k 7.4/s 22.10 90.36
UPDATE 539 0.4/s1.07 4.39
INSERT 384 0.3/s
3.21k 2.1/s6.39
COM_QUIT 2.89k 1.9/s5.76
-Unknown745 0.5/s1.48
Slow 10 s 68 0.0/s0.14 %DMS: 0.55 Log: OFF
DMS12.28k 8.2/s 24.46
SELECT 11.09k 7.4/s
24.46
Com_ 3.21k 2.1/s6.39
COM_QUIT 2.89k 1.9/s5.76
-Unknown745 0.5/s1.48
Slow 10 s 68 0.0/s0.14 %DMS: 0.55 Log: OFF
DMS12.28k 8.2/s 24.46
SELECT 11.09k 7.4
0.5/s 1.48
Slow 10 s 68 0.0/s 0.14 %DMS: 0.55 Log: OFF
DMS 12.28k 8.2/s 24.46
SELECT 11.09k 7.4/s 22.10 90.36
UPDATE 539 0.4/s 1.07 4.39
INSERT 384 0.3
5.76
-Unknown745 0.5/s1.48
Slow 10 s 68 0.0/s0.14 %DMS: 0.55 Log: OFF
DMS12.28k 8.2/s 24.46
SELECT 11.09k 7.4/s 22.10 90.36
UPDATE 539 0.4/s1.07
...@singerwang.comwrote:
Okay, lets hold on for a minute here and go back. We're side tracking too
much.
Lets state the facts here:
1) MyISAM stores the row count internally, a 'select count(*) from table'
DOES NOT DO A FULL TABLE SCAN
2) hell, a software RAID6 of 2 MFM drives could do a seek
| root | localhost | NULL | Query |0 | NULL
| show processlist
|
| 2507 | p_092211 | localhost | p_092211 | Query |5 | Locked
| SELECT oldurl, dateadd FROM w6h8a_sh404sef_urls WHERE newurl =
'index.php?option=com_communityItemi |
| 2508
I've sent this email a few times now, mysql list kept rejecting it due to
size, sorry for any duplicates
I think you need to examine this query in particular:
| 2567 | p_092211 | localhost | p_092211 | Query | 11 | Sending
data | select oldurl, newurl, id, dateadd from
From: Joey L mjh2...@gmail.com
i did google search - myisam is faster...i am not really doing any
transaction stuff.
That's true for read-only. But if you have a mix of reads and writes, MYISAM
locks tables during writes, which could be blocking reads.
In a museum in
Guys - I wanted to thank you all very much for your help
I found the offending code on the website !
thank you very very very much...
what did it for me was a combination of show processlist and show full
processlist.
I saw the full queries and the main thing was that it was doing a
query
Glad you got to the bottom of it Joey.
On 7 Oct 2011 01:23, Joey L mjh2...@gmail.com wrote:
Guys - I wanted to thank you all very much for your help
I found the offending code on the website !
thank you very very very much...
what did it for me was a combination of show processlist and
Thanks for the input -
1. I will wait 48 hours and see what happens.
2. can you tell me what are some performance tests I can do to help me
better tune my server ?
3. I am concerned about this table : | w6h8a_sh404sef_urls |
MyISAM | 10 | Dynamic| 8908402 |174
have you tried
select count(yourindex) instead of select count(*) ?
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Joey L mjh2...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the input -
1. I will wait 48 hours and see what happens.
2. can you tell me what are some performance tests I can do to help me
better tune my
:58 AM, Andrés Tello mr.crip...@gmail.com wrote:
have you tried
select count(yourindex) instead of select count(*) ?
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Joey L mjh2...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the input -
1. I will wait 48 hours and see what happens.
2. can you tell me what are some
Can you run show processlist in another connection while the select
count(*) query is running and say what the state column is?
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Joey L mjh2...@gmail.com wrote:
this is not a real query on the site - it is just a way i am measuring
performance on mysql - I do
I have having issues with mysql db - I am doing a select count(*) from
table -- and it take 3 to 4 min.
My table has about 9,000,000 records in it.
I have noticed issues on my web pages so that is why i did this test.
I have about 4 gig of memory on the server.
Is there anything I can do to fix
Is your table MyISAM or InnoDB?
A
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Joey L mjh2...@gmail.com wrote:
I have having issues with mysql db - I am doing a select count(*) from
table -- and it take 3 to 4 min.
My table has about 9,000,000 records in it.
I have noticed issues on my web pages so
?
A
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Joey L mjh2...@gmail.com wrote:
I have having issues with mysql db - I am doing a select count(*) from
table -- and it take 3 to 4 min.
My table has about 9,000,000 records in it.
I have noticed issues on my web pages so that is why i did this test.
I have about 4
I'd suggest mysqltuner. You can get it by using:
wget http://mysqltuner.pl
See what suggestions that makes
On 10/02/2011 06:44 AM, Joey L wrote:
I have having issues with mysql db - I am doing a select count(*) from
table -- and it take 3 to 4 min.
My table has about 9,000,000 records
L mjh2...@gmail.com wrote:
I have having issues with mysql db - I am doing a select count(*) from
table -- and it take 3 to 4 min.
My table has about 9,000,000 records in it.
I have noticed issues on my web pages so that is why i did this test.
I have about 4 gig of memory on the server
The section called: Variables to adjust: --when it says -- does this
mean I have to set it higher in my.cnf file ?? and if I have a -- does
this mean I have to set it lower ??
thanks...here is the info below you both asked for :
mysql select count(*) from w6h8a_sh404sef_urls
this mean I have to set it lower ??
thanks...here is the info below you both asked for :
mysql select count(*) from w6h8a_sh404sef_urls ;
+--+
| count(*) |
+--+
| 8908193 |
+--+
1 row in set (2 min 5.53 sec)
| w6h8a_session | MyISAM | 10
The meaning is:
increase max_connections
reduce wait_timeout
-- 28800 is wait 8 hours before closing out dead connections
same for interactive_timeout
increase key_buffer_size ( 7.8G) increase join_buffer_size
-- This keeps mysql from having to run to disk constantly for keys
-- Key buffer
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 04:00, Hank hes...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Brandon's suggestions, I would just add when using numeric
types in PHP statements where you have a variable replacement, for instance:
$sql=INSERT into table VALUES ('$id','$val');
where $id is a numeric variable in
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 07:47, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
what ugly style - if it is not numeric and you throw it to the database
you are one of the many with a sql-injection because if you are get
ivalid values until there you have done no sanitize before and do not here
what ugly style - if it is not numeric and you throw it to the database
you are one of the many with a sql-injection because if you are get
ivalid values until there you have done no sanitize before and do not here
It's a matter of opinion. I never said the data wasn't sanitized (it is).
Am 19.09.2011 16:55, schrieb Hank:
what ugly style - if it is not numeric and you throw it to the database
you are one of the many with a sql-injection because if you are get
ivalid values until there you have done no sanitize before and do not here
It's a matter of opinion. I never said
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 18:11, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
it is not because it is clear that it is sanitized instead hope and pray
thousands of layers somewhere else did it - for a inline-query the best
solution, if you are using a framework you will never have the insert into
Best of both worlds:
$username=$_POST['username'];
// do some stuff with username here
$M=array(); // Array of things to be inserted into MySQL
$M[username]=mysql_real_escape_string($username); // Everything that
goes into $M is escaped
$query=INSERT INTO table (username) VALUES
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 01:11, Hank hes...@gmail.com wrote:
Best of both worlds:
$username=$_POST['username'];
// do some stuff with username here
$M=array(); // Array of things to be inserted into MySQL
$M[username]=mysql_real_escape_string($username); // Everything that
goes into $M is
Am 20.09.2011 00:39, schrieb Dotan Cohen:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 01:11, Hank hes...@gmail.com wrote:
Best of both worlds:
$username=$_POST['username'];
// do some stuff with username here
$M=array(); // Array of things to be inserted into MySQL
I want to be sure that all variables in the query are escaped. I don't
trust myself or anyone else to do this to every variable right before
the query:
$someVar=mysql_real_escape_string($someVar);
But you're doing exactly that right before the query anyway with:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 02:09, Hank hes...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to be sure that all variables in the query are escaped. I don't
trust myself or anyone else to do this to every variable right before
the query:
$someVar=mysql_real_escape_string($someVar);
But you're doing exactly that
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 01:48, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
i would use a samll class holding the db-connection with insert/update-methods
pass the whole record-array, lokk what field types are used in the table
and use intval(), doubleval() or mysql_real_escape-String
so you
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 01:48, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
i would use a samll class holding the db-connection with insert/update-methods
pass the whole record-array, lokk what field types are used in the table
and use intval(), doubleval() or mysql_real_escape-String
By the
Am 20.09.2011 01:23, schrieb Dotan Cohen:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 01:48, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
i would use a samll class holding the db-connection with
insert/update-methods
pass the whole record-array, lokk what field types are used in the table
and use intval(),
Personally I don't use any quotes for the numeric types, and single quotes for
everything else. Ie:
UPDATE mytable SET int_field = 5 WHERE id = 3;
SELECT id FROM mytable WHERE int_field = 5;
UPDATE mytable SET varchar_field = 'Test' WHERE id = 3;
SELECT id FROM mytable WHERE varchar_field
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 17:44, Brandon Phelps bphe...@gls.com wrote:
Personally I don't use any quotes for the numeric types, and single quotes
for everything else. Ie:
Thanks, Brandon. I understand then that quote type is a matter of
taste. I always use double quotes in PHP and I've only
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 17:44, Brandon Phelps bphe...@gls.com wrote:
Personally I don't use any quotes for the numeric types, and single
quotes
for everything else. Ie:
Thanks, Brandon. I understand then that
Am 19.09.2011 03:00, schrieb Hank:
I agree with Brandon's suggestions, I would just add when using numeric
types in PHP statements where you have a variable replacement, for instance:
$sql=INSERT into table VALUES ('$id','$val');
where $id is a numeric variable in PHP and a numeric field
Thanks, Tyler,
That's very helpful.
Dennis
--- On Sat, 9/3/11, Tyler Poland tpol...@engineyard.com wrote:
From: Tyler Poland tpol...@engineyard.com
Subject: Re: select ... into local outfile ... ???
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Date: Saturday, September 3, 2011, 3:45 AM
Dennis,
The following
2011/09/03 03:40 +0800, Dennis
But it seems that there is no select ... into LOCAL file statement. Any
suggestion is appreciated.
Indeed: you can use only standard output.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http
hi, there,
the following is my sql statement:
SELECT HIGH_PRIORITY SQL_BIG_RESULT SQL_NO_CACHE
tb.url_sign, m_url, m_title, m_weight INTO OUTFILE '/tmp/a.csv'
FIELDS TERMINATED BY ',' ENCLOSED BY '\' LINES TERMINATED BY '\n' STARTING
BY '='
FROM d_local.ta, d_news.tbWHERE
/\\t/\t/g' ' output.txt
Tyler
*
*On 9/2/11 3:40 PM, Dennis wrote:
hi, there,
the following is my sql statement:
SELECT HIGH_PRIORITY SQL_BIG_RESULT SQL_NO_CACHE
tb.url_sign, m_url,m_title, m_weightINTO OUTFILE '/tmp/a.csv'
FIELDS TERMINATED BY ',' ENCLOSED BY '\' LINES
On 7/31/2011 13:18, yavuz maslak wrote:
I don't want all records during 5 days ( 24*5days ) . Only I need records
at 5 days ago ( for instance 24 hours on 26 th July 2011) ?
How can I do that ?
Show us your table definition (the CREATE TABLE ... form, please),
tell us which column you
- Original Message -
From: yavuz maslak mas...@ihlas.net.tr
I don't want all records during 5 days ( 24*5days ) . Only I need
records at 5 days ago ( for instance 24 hours on 26 th July 2011) ?
Which is what I gave you. You may want to read the fine documentation online
before
Hi
How can I get all records exact 5 days ago from a table, neither 6 days nor
4 days ?
Could you give me an example ?
Thanks
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
, 2011 11:46:14 AM
Subject: How select all records exact x days ago ?
Hi
How can I get all records exact 5 days ago from a table, neither 6
days nor
4 days ?
Could you give me an example ?
Thanks
--
Bier met grenadyn
Is als mosterd by den wyn
Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
Hy
I don't want all records during 5 days ( 24*5days ) . Only I need records
at 5 days ago ( for instance 24 hours on 26 th July 2011) ?
How can I do that ?
Depends on how your table is set up (you're going to need a date in the
data...) but probably something along the lines of where
mysql select day(now())-5;
+--+
| day(now())-5 |
+--+
| 26 |
+--+
2011/7/31 yavuz maslak mas...@ihlas.net.tr:
I don't want all records during 5 days ( 24*5days ) . Only I need records
at 5 days ago ( for instance 24 hours on 26 th July 2011
is the offset to UTC
(what is used internaly of cause).
see also:
http://www.mysqlfaqs.net/mysql-faqs/General-Questions/How-to-manage-Time-Zone-in-MySQL
btw: please notice the difference between:
mysql select @@session.time_zone ;
+-+
| @@session.time_zone
snip
-Original Message-
From: sono...@fannullone.us [mailto:sono...@fannullone.us]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:01 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Cc: wha...@bfs.de; Jerry Schwartz
Subject: Re: SELECT records less than 15 minutes old
On Jun 20, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jerry Schwartz wrote
Am 19.06.2011 21:06, schrieb sono...@fannullone.us:
On Jun 19, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Claudio Nanni wrote:
just a quick debug:
Thanks, Claudio. It turned out to be that NOW() was using the server's
time and my timestamp was based on my timezone. After fixing that, the
SELECT
-Original Message-
From: walter harms [mailto:wha...@bfs.de]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 7:07 AM
To: sono...@fannullone.us
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: SELECT records less than 15 minutes old
Am 19.06.2011 21:06, schrieb sono...@fannullone.us:
On Jun 19, 2011, at 11:11 AM
() to use UTC instead of the server timezone?
(The server is not mine, so I can't change the my.cnf.) Here's my statement:
SELECT * FROM `log` WHERE `id` = $_id AND ( `time_stamp` = DATE_SUB(NOW(),
INTERVAL 30 MINUTE) )
Earlier in my PHP script I've used date_default_timezone_set
Hi,
I'm trying to write a statement that will return all records that match
a particular order_id and that have a timestamp within the last 15 minutes. I
thought that this should work:
SELECT * FROM `records` WHERE `order_id` = $order_id AND (`time_stamp` =
DATE_SUB(NOW(), INTERVAL
just a quick debug:
SELECT time_stamp,DATE_SUB(NOW(), INTERVAL 15 MINUTE) FROM `records` WHERE
`order_id` = $order_id order by time_stamp desc limit 10;
what do you get?
2011/6/19 sono...@fannullone.us
Hi,
I'm trying to write a statement that will return all records that
match
On Jun 19, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Claudio Nanni wrote:
just a quick debug:
Thanks, Claudio. It turned out to be that NOW() was using the server's
time and my timestamp was based on my timezone. After fixing that, the SELECT
statement works properly.
Marc
--
MySQL General Mailing List
I am loading data using LOAD DATA as source is csv file.
My selection is very simple with like
select * from XYZ where key = 123;
for 1 million sample record
I created innodb table with key, to load data from csv it took nearly 1 and 1/2
hour on modest PC
I created MyISAM table with key
- Original Message -
From: Anupam Karmarkar sb_akarmar...@yahoo.com
select * from XYZ where key = 123;
Now if i have to load data feed of 10 million once in week i need to
consider loading time also
Yes, On InnoDB you can't disable the primary key, as the data is
index-organized
Hi All,
We have very big table with few column contains nearly 10 million records, We
need to tune this table for simple select statement where we check record
exists in table or not and requirement is response time should be less than 10
million second for nearly 1000 concurrent requests
Hi Anupam,
how do you load data? is it naturally ordered in any way?
Claudio
2011/6/7 Anupam Karmarkar sb_akarmar...@yahoo.com
Hi All,
We have very big table with few column contains nearly 10 million records,
We need to tune this table for simple select statement where we check record
- Original Message -
From: Claudio Nanni claudio.na...@gmail.com
how do you load data? is it naturally ordered in any way?
Also, what's the record structure, and what are the criteria you use to check
if a record exists?
If you only need to know wether a given record exists, your
I haven't bothered to look for the bug, but it seems to me to be quite
reasonable default behaviour to lock the whole lot when you're dumping
transactional tables - it ensures you dump all tables from the same consistent
view.
I would rather take this up with the ZRM people - it should just
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:44 +0200, Johan De Meersman
vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote:
I haven't bothered to look for the bug, but it seems to me to be quite
reasonable default behaviour to lock the whole lot when you're dumping
transactional tables - it ensures you dump all tables from the same
that contains realtime information about the
database, intended to replace a lot of show tables parsing and similar mayhem
with simple select statements.
I believe that's an Amanda 3.3 release you're referring to. ZRM is
still at 2.2,
No, I do mean 3.3. Apparently the free downloadable version
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:54 +0200, Johan De Meersman
vegiv...@tuxera.be wrote:
Excluding 'performance_schema' appears to eliminate the error. And it
seems does NOT cause a reliability-of-the-backup problem.
Hah, no, backing that up is utterly pointless.
that's a useful/final confirmation.
-insert --create-options
--default-character-set=utf8 --routines --host=localhost
--port=3306 --socket=/var/cache/mysql/mysql.sock --databases
drupal6 performance_schema
/var/mysql-bkup/manual/20110605131003/backup.sql
mysqldump: Got error: 1142: SELECT,LOCK
/cache/mysql/mysql.sock --databases
drupal6 performance_schema
/var/mysql-bkup/manual/20110605131003/backup.sql
mysqldump: Got error: 1142: SELECT,LOCK TABL command denied to
user 'root'@'localhost' for table 'cond_instances' when using
LOCK TABLES
'@'localhost' IDENTIFIED BY
PASSWORD '*D...D'
|
| GRANT SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, CREATE, DROP, INDEX,
ALTER, CREATE TEMPORARY TABLES, LOCK TABLES ON `drupal6`.* TO
'drupal_admin
the grant statements does nobody interest
maybe use phpmyadmin for a clearer display
mysql select * from mysql.user where user='root' limit 1
fwiw, others are seeing this. e.g., in addition to the two bugs i'd
already referenced,
http://www.directadmin.com/forum/showthread.php?p=202053
and one
http://qa.lampcms.com/q122897/Can-t-backup-mysql-table-with-mysqldump-SELECT-LOCK-TABL-command
claims a solution
Add --skip-add-locks
referenced,
http://www.directadmin.com/forum/showthread.php?p=202053
and one
http://qa.lampcms.com/q122897/Can-t-backup-mysql-table-with-mysqldump-SELECT-LOCK-TABL-command
claims a solution
Add --skip-add-locks to your mysqldump command
which, having added as i mentioned above
/showthread.php?p=202053
and one
http://qa.lampcms.com/q122897/Can-t-backup-mysql-table-with-mysqldump-SELECT-LOCK-TABL-command
claims a solution
Add --skip-add-locks to your mysqldump command
which, having added as i mentioned above, to the [mysqldump] section of
/etc/my.cnf, does
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 23:30 +0200, Reindl Harald
h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
BTW
WHY is everybody ansering to the list AND the author of the last post?
this reults in get every message twice :-(
Reply - sends to ONLY the From == h.rei...@thelounge.net
Reply to all sends to BOTH the From ==
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 23:29 +0200, Reindl Harald
h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
i would use a replication slave and stop him for consistent backups
because dumb locks are not really a good solution independent
if this works normally
unfortunately, i have no idea what that means.
something's
Am 05.06.2011 23:49, schrieb ag...@airpost.net:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 23:29 +0200, Reindl Harald
h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
i would use a replication slave and stop him for consistent backups
because dumb locks are not really a good solution independent
if this works normally
i still have no idea why this is necessary.
there seems to be a but, problem, misconfiguration, etc.
wouldn't it make some sense to try to FIX it, rather than setting up a
completely different server?
perhaps someone with an idea of the problem and its solution will be
able to chime in.
--
101 - 200 of 4787 matches
Mail list logo
