On 7/24/2015 4:35 PM, Camilo Vieira wrote:
Hi,
My MySQL server is performing very slow inserts. Does somebody could help
me to understand what's happening?
... snip ...
---TRANSACTION 31D6D74, ACTIVE 27107 sec
mysql tables in use 8, locked 8
7470 lock struct(s), heap size 801208, 849088 row lo
- Original Message -
> From: "Camilo Vieira"
> Subject: Re: MySQL 5.5 Slow performance to insert
> $ ./mysqltuner.pl --user root --pass abril@123
Thank you for that password :-) I don't particularly like MySQLtuner myself, it
makes assumptions about your workl
Hi Luis,
I have got the output below:
$ ./mysqltuner.pl --user root --pass abril@123
[OK] Logged in using credentials passed on the command line
>> MySQLTuner 1.5.0 - Major Hayden
>> Bug reports, feature requests, and downloads at http://mysqltuner.com/
>> Run with '--help' for additional
Hi,
Your INSEERquery status is "Copying to tmp table",
this means fetching rows which has to be inserted is slow.
You should tune SELECT statement in your insert query.
Adding indexes and/or simplifying query and/or .. so on.
```
---TRANSACTION 31D6D74, ACTIVE 27107 sec
mysql tables in use 8, l
Hi,
My MySQL server is performing very slow inserts. Does somebody could help
me to understand what's happening?
mysql> show engine innodb status \G
*** 1. row ***
Type: InnoDB
Name:
Status:
=
150724 17:40:28
Hi,
I have two servers Mysql 5.5 with master to master replication.
The second server failed and I needed to remove it to repair the operating
system.
After this incident the application users have been notice that the
application response have been very slow.
Both servers have RAID 1 (mirroring)
Check your auto negotiate setting on your nic. Run ifconfig and see if there
are a lot of errors.
On Sep 29, 2011 10:13 AM, "Jim Moseby" wrote:
Yeah:
# host 72.30.2.43 /* yahoo.com */
43.2.30.72.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer ir1.fp.vip.sk1.yahoo.com.
# host 10.1.20.97 /* my windows box */
97
Yeah:
# host 72.30.2.43 /* yahoo.com */
43.2.30.72.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer ir1.fp.vip.sk1.yahoo.com.
# host 10.1.20.97 /* my windows box */
97.20.1.10.in-addr.arpa has no PTR record
>>> Todd Lyons 9/29/2011 10:26 AM >>>
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Jim Moseby wrote:
> I still u
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Jim Moseby wrote:
> I still use the old MySQL Administrator GUI on my windows box. A simple
> 'select * from tablename' that would return only three records takes just
> over a minute to return (although it says '3 records returned in 0.0086
> seconds' at the
mysql Ver 14.12 Distrib 5.0.51a, for debian-linux-gnu (i486) using readline 5.2
Strange, strange problem.
Everything was fine yesterday morning, then all of a sudden any query over the
network takes a REALLY long time to return. If I log in at the server console,
every query is snappy-fast.
Thank you in advance ...
(I have paid support with Confluence and I have also posted my question with
them.)
Our installation will run for hours or days without issues, and then CPU usage
quickly spikes to nearly 100%, with mysqld taking 90% or more of the CPU.
Bouncing Confluence and Mysql f
ssage-
From: Dan Nelson [mailto:dnel...@allantgroup.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:09 PM
To: Tachu(R)
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Slow performance Query
In the last episode (Aug 11), Tachu(R) said:
> Hi guys I've been having some slow performance on queries that shoul
In the last episode (Aug 11), Tachu(R) said:
> Hi guys I've been having some slow performance on queries that should
> otherwise be pretty fast. I've checked my indexes etc. and cant see what
> could cause it here is an example. This one is taking long in the sending
> da
It is slow probably because you are using
where user_id='1421767810'
and user_id is an integer. I think this is one of those d'uh moments. :-)
Mike
At 01:18 PM 8/11/2009, Tachu® wrote:
Hi guys I've been having some slow performance on queries that should
otherwise
Hi guys I've been having some slow performance on queries that should
otherwise be pretty fast. I've checked my indexes etc. and cant see
what could cause it here is an example.
This one is taking long in the sending data step. although its running
on localhost so its not like its
PROTECTED] for details.
Content preview: Hi, I'm seeing what to me appears to be very slow
performance when inserting/ updating / deleting into a 15M row innodb
table. I'm using mysql 5.0 on Solaris 10 with 8GB RAM. MySQL is compiled
32bit so has 4GB available. [...]
Content analys
I am using the .net connector for mono in my application to connect to MySql
servers. Application is open-source and can be found here:
http://fileuniverse.com/?p=showitem&ID=2746
The program searches some text files for info to store in a database.
- In both my Linux boxes, with MySql 4.1, progra
Hi,
I wrote some weeks ago to the mailinglist with the same problem. The
performance isn't still much better.
I try to find the optimal value for tmp_table_size (now set to 67108864),
cause we have some problems. Sometimes I see, that the result data will be
copied to tmp table:
Copying to tmp
Might instead want to look at
where fooid in (xx, xx, xx, xx)
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, Marc Slemko wrote:
> If I do a query such as:
>
> SELECT * from foo where fooid = 10 or fooid = 20 or fooid = 03 ...
>
> with a total of around 1900 "or fooid =" parts on a given table with 500k
> rows, it takes
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: "Marc Slemko"
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: slow performance with large "or" list in where
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Santino wrote:
>
> > Have You test in operator?
> >
> > select * from table w
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Santino wrote:
> Have You test in operator?
>
> select * from table where id in (10,20,30,50,60,90, )
Yes, IN does perform at the levels I want and works for the simplified
example I gave, but doesn't work for the generalized case I need,
which is matching individual rows
Have You test in operator?
select * from table where id in (10,20,30,50,60,90, )
Santino
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Alexis da Cruz Henriques Guia wrote:
>
> Your problem is that MySQL don't use indeces in selects with 'or' (See MySQL
> manual).
If you are referring to:
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/Searching_on_two_keys.html
then that page doesn't say mysql doesn't use indexes on se
Your problem is that MySQL don't use indeces in selects with 'or' (See MySQL
manual).
But i didn't have understand what's your problem executing individual
selects...
You don't need to open parallel connections. Put the UPDATE commands in a file,
and execute them in mysql prompt like this:
mysql>
If I do a query such as:
SELECT * from foo where fooid = 10 or fooid = 20 or fooid = 03 ...
with a total of around 1900 "or fooid =" parts on a given table with 500k
rows, it takes about four times longer than doing 1900 separate
queries in the form:
SELECT * from foo where fooid = 10
fooid is
I ran iostat, what are important values to consider?
I ran the job from 12:31:51 to 12:32:18. I can see there was a noticeable
drop in tps. I should mention that this node is basically idle at this time
(it's a new development node, so no non-core processes except mysqld.
Linux 2.4.18-3 (venus)
Do you have disk performance data? My guess would be it's the time to
read the information off the disk.
I think redhat has the iostat command. Try running
iostat 1
in one window while you run your query in another, what result do you
get from the iostat?
--
Michael Conlen
Bob Ostermann wrote
Hi-
I'm running mysql Ver 12.20 Distrib 4.0.13, for pc-linux (i686) / RedHat
7.3 on a AMD 2400XP 256 MB.
I've got a table (type=MyISAM) that's grown to 1,7 GB (154,815 records) and
it takes several seconds to perform even simple querys:
select data from eod where symbol='ZOOM'
yields: 1 row
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 05:06:54PM -0500, Ledet, Mike wrote:
> I tried your TOP suggestion but didn't see anything out of the ordinary.
> Swap size was constant (6400 or so) and didn't increase or decrease under
> load.
Familiarize yourself with vmstat if you aren't already and then run
`vmstat 1`
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ledet, Mike wrote:
| I'm running Mysql 3.23.52 on a Redhat 8.0 installation booting to Gnome.
| The machine is a dual AMD 1800, 1 gig of ram, one Ultra ATA IDE drive, and 2
| 18 gig scsi 10,000 RPM drives on a RAID controller running Raid 0.
|
| I've g
>From: DELETED TO PROTECT THE GUILTY
[Four original lines and SEVERAL HUNDRED quoted lines deleted]
PLEASE folk, trim up your quotes a bit!
Nothing spells "newbie" so much as mindlessly including everything anyone has ever
written on a topic. And when two of you go at it with each other, it's e
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 05:18:26PM -0500, Adam Nelson wrote:
>
> Don't let this list fool you. SQL Server is a very good product.
> It is far superior to Mysql in every way except cost and the fact
> that it doesn't run on unix.
This smells a lot like flaim bait on a MySQL list...
Jeremy
--
Jer
re on wasted people time than I
would on licenses.
-Original Message-
From: Adam Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:26 PM
To: 'Ledet, Mike'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
Go for it. Whatever works
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:23 PM
> To: 'Adam Nelson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
>
>
> Well, I've got an MSDN subscription so I have access to a
> legal copy.. the
> non-unix thing is a downside but the
g that way.
-Original Message-
From: Adam Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:18 PM
To: 'Ledet, Mike'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
Don't let this list fool you. SQL Server is a very good product. It is
5:12 PM
> To: 'Adam Nelson'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
>
>
> Actually it is hardware Raid 0, not software. I knew about
> the safety issue
> but I had been told that from a performance stand-point that
> Raid 0 was
dam Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:35 PM
To: 'Ledet, Mike'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
The first thing I would do is toss the ultra ata drive and just use the
scsi drives running raid1, raid0 just isn't saf
Good question... I have no idea. I'll change it to 4.
-Original Message-
From: Adam Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:36 PM
To: 'Ledet, Mike'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
Oh, and wha
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 3:37 PM
To: Ledet, Mike; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
Hi Mike,
i'm a newbie in optimizing the inner structure of a db - so i stick to the
os-part where i might have a vague clue ;-)
did you take a look at the memory / sw
Oh, and what's up with the thread_concurrency being 6? That doesn't
make any sense unless you have a tri-processor setup.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ledet, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:01 AM
> To: '[EMAIL
k, get in touch.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ledet, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:01 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Slow performance using 3.23 on RH 8.0
>
>
> I'm running Mysql 3.23.52 on a Redhat 8.
ging my.cnf didn't
really change the situation - but for testing you could just do "swapoff -a"
and compare the results.
goodluck,
niko
- Original Message -
From: "Ledet, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 0
I'm running Mysql 3.23.52 on a Redhat 8.0 installation booting to Gnome.
The machine is a dual AMD 1800, 1 gig of ram, one Ultra ATA IDE drive, and 2
18 gig scsi 10,000 RPM drives on a RAID controller running Raid 0.
I've got everything except /db on the IDE drive, /db is the only thing on
the rai
Xavier LENOIR wrote:
>>I use queries like this :
>>SELECT count(*) FROM MyTable WHERE (MATCH(Title) AGAINST('a word'));
>>SELECT * FROM MyTable WHERE (MATCH(Title) AGAINST('a word')) LIMIT 10;
>>
>
>
Have you tried building a seperate table of titles for the sake of
having a smaller table to
Hello,
I am running a rather simple query on a merge table that seems to be taking
much longer than it should.
First let me show the table status of the tables I have merged into table
'blah':
NameTypeRow_format RowsAvg_row_length Data_length
Max_data_length Index_length
Hi!
We just found out that recent MySQL AB binaries on Windows have
UNIV_SYNC_DEBUG defined in univ.i. That makes InnoDB a lot, maybe 10 times,
slower than the normal version.
Miguel is right now compiling new binaries where the flag is set right. Thus
if you have seen high CPU usage on Windows,
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 11:41:08AM -0400, Wai Lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am experiencing a very slow performance while I am building an index on a
> table. The following are some facts of system and the table I am dealing
> with:
>
> Table size: 13,857,354
> Number of distin
Hi,
I am experiencing a very slow performance while I am building an index on a
table. The following are some facts of system and the table I am dealing
with:
Table size: 13,857,354
Number of distinct value in the column I use as index: 176,322
Platform: Linux system with dual CPUs 1G Hz and 4G
48 matches
Mail list logo
