frequently,how could i set
the configure to speed up the query operation.
the token's struct is id,expires,extra,valid,user_id with index {expires,valid}
and the select sql is "select id,expires,extra,valid,user_id from token where
valid=1 and expires >='-XX-XX XX:XX:XX&#x
Parallel Universe* now features Parallel Network Query (Distributed Query)
which joins tables from multiple servers in the network with unprecedented
speed.
Parallel Network Query may also be used to speed up slow server by
distributing tables of the query to multiple servers for processing which
l 16, 2013 2:06 AM
>> To: Ilya Kazakevich
>> Cc: MySQL
>> Subject: Re: Mesaure query speed and InnoDB pool
>>
>> Does your query use proper indexes.
>> Does your query scan less number blocks/rows can you share the explain
>> plan of the sql
>>
>>
ze is probably the biggest
memory consumer, so it is the easiest way to shrink mysqld's footprint.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ilya Kazakevich [mailto:ilya.kazakev...@jetbrains.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:05 AM
> To: Rick James
> Cc: 'MySQL'
> Su
to about 70% of available
RAM.
-Original Message-
From: Ananda Kumar [mailto:anan...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 2:06 AM
To: Ilya Kazakevich
Cc: MySQL
Subject: Re: Mesaure query speed and InnoDB pool
Does your query use proper indexes.
Does your query scan less number
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:38 AM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: Mesaure query speed and InnoDB pool
>
> Hi Rick,
> I thought you have to dedicate 70-80% of available RAM not a total RAM.
> Saying if I have 2 gig of RAM on my exclusively innodb box, and I
&
o:anan...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 2:06 AM
> To: Ilya Kazakevich
> Cc: MySQL
> Subject: Re: Mesaure query speed and InnoDB pool
>
> Does your query use proper indexes.
> Does your query scan less number blocks/rows can you share the explain
> plan of the sql
>
several ideas:
* Count 'Innodb_rows_read' or 'Innodb_pages_read' instead of actual time
* Set pool as small as possible to reduce its effect on query speed
* Set pool larger than my db and run query to load all data into pool and
measure speed then
How do you measure your queries'
27; or 'Innodb_pages_read' instead of actual time
> * Set pool as small as possible to reduce its effect on query speed
> * Set pool larger than my db and run query to load all data into pool and
> measure speed then
>
> How do you measure your queries' speed?
>
>
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Rich Jones wrote:
> Hey folks!
>
> This gig just popped up on our system, thought it could be some easy money
> for anybody out there who knows Ruby/Rails and how to optimize queries!
>
> http://gun.io/contracts/67/improve-site-speed-for-s
Hey folks!
This gig just popped up on our system, thought it could be some easy money
for anybody out there who knows Ruby/Rails and how to optimize queries!
http://gun.io/contracts/67/improve-site-speed-for-startup
Thanks!
--
Rich Jones
Director, Gun.io
>
> AND Substring(a.mob, 1, 4) = b.mob_series
>
There's what is probably the major problem with your query: your join
condition. Indices (you *do* have them on your join fields, don't you ?)
only work on the entire field you've indexed.
Function indices are not supported in MySQL, so you'll
#x27;t use NOT IN (), but use IN () if you want
> performance
>
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 9:46 AM, kranthi kiran wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > Following query take 25 minutes time,in this table having 3 core
> > records,how to speed up this query,please help me.thanks
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 6:25 AM, mos wrote:
> At 06:12 AM 10/24/2010, you wrote:
>
>> Regardless of that, it would be nice to know what the parameters are that
>> cause this slowdown - some people may be stuck with the default version -
>> companies with a support contract come to mind.
>>
>
> Yo
At 06:12 AM 10/24/2010, you wrote:
Regardless of that, it would be nice to know what the parameters are that
cause this slowdown - some people may be stuck with the default version -
companies with a support contract come to mind.
You didn't say whether the slowdown occurs when
1) adding new ro
Regardless of that, it would be nice to know what the parameters are that
cause this slowdown - some people may be stuck with the default version -
companies with a support contract come to mind.
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Krishna Chandra Prajapati <
prajapat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Will
Hi Willy,
Try percona server. It gives better performance than mysql.
Krishna
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Willy Mularto wrote:
> Dear List,
> I have MySQL 5.14 installed on Dell R710 32GB RAM 600GB SAS HDD with Ubuntu
> 10.04 64 Bit. I deploy InnoDB as my default engine. The server is a h
Dear List,
I have MySQL 5.14 installed on Dell R710 32GB RAM 600GB SAS HDD with Ubuntu
10.04 64 Bit. I deploy InnoDB as my default engine. The server is a high load
server. On a fresh install and empty table it can insert around 5 millions new
records per day average. But when the table getting
At 09:40 AM 4/30/2009, you wrote:
I see MySQL 5.4 is
out. http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/generate-article.php?id=1602
Sun claims there are speed improvements for Innodb and ClusterDb
tables, but is there any reason to upgrade if I'm only using MyISAM tables?
Also I didn&#x
I see MySQL 5.4 is
out. http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/generate-article.php?id=1602
Sun claims there are speed improvements for Innodb and ClusterDb
tables, but is there any reason to upgrade if I'm only using MyISAM tables?
Also I didn't see a Windows binary download. Does t
_to_products table
> >> to browse_nodes table
> >>
> >> anyone?
> >> Martin
> >> __
> >> Disclaimer and confidentiality note
> >> Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relates to the offic
__
>> Disclaimer and confidentiality note
>> Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relates to the official
>> business of Sender. This transmission is of a confidential nature and Sender
>> does not endorse distribution to any party other than intended recipient.
>&g
nature and Sender does not endorse distribution to any party other
than intended recipient. Sender does not necessarily endorse content
contained within this transmission.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Speed up slow SQL statement.
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:42:07 -040
content contained within this transmission.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Speed up slow SQL statement.
> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:42:07 -0400
>
> Good morning everyone,
>
> I've got a sql statement that is running quite slow. I&#x
Good morning everyone,
I've got a sql statement that is running quite slow. I've indexed
everything I can that could possibly be applicable but I can't seem to
speed it up.
I've put up the table structures, row counts, the sql statement and
the explain dump of the
na i Estany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > On Sep/25/2008, Ananda Kumar wrote:
> > > > > does it have the same network speed as your old server.
> > > >
> > &
new server.
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > On 9/25/08, Carles Pina i Estany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Sep/25/2008, Ananda Kumar wrote:
> > > > does it have the same network speed
Hello,
On Sep/25/2008, Ananda Kumar wrote:
> does it have the same network speed as your old server.
yes, it has. But I'm running the query from localhost :-) (socket
connection). Even, the query only returns one number and I don't have
any federated tables, etc.
>
> On 9/2
isk than the database, same thing happends
in the new server.
Thanks,
>
> On 9/25/08, Carles Pina i Estany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sep/25/2008, Ananda Kumar wrote:
> > > does it have the same network speed as your
is /tmpdir parameter on both machines using the default value
On 9/25/08, Carles Pina i Estany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> On Sep/25/2008, Ananda Kumar wrote:
> > does it have the same network speed as your old server.
>
> yes, it has. But I&#
does it have the same network speed as your old server.
On 9/25/08, Carles Pina i Estany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> On Sep/24/2008, Phil wrote:
> > Just a wild guess but, did you perhaps change the filesystem to a
> > journalling filsystem wh
Hello,
On Sep/24/2008, Phil wrote:
> Just a wild guess but, did you perhaps change the filesystem to a
> journalling filsystem when moving to the different server?
mount reports the same (ext3)
> I once accidently moved my database from an ext2 to an ext3 partition and it
> took me a while to f
elete--
> files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec
> %CP
> 16 27950 49 + +++ + +++ + +++ + +++ +
> +++
>
> lexatelbackup,2G,24873,55,26393,9,13665,2,36893,72,40453,2,160.8,0,16,27950,49,+
> +,+++,+,+++,+++
eate files/sec and Create %CP, etc. (??))
Does somebody has any idea why is slower than the other server? IO problem? CPU
problem?
In one hand looks like a IO problem but using bonnie and hdparm I don't see
anything _so bad_ (it takes 15 times more in one server than the other
server).
So, CPU is wa
out 1 million new records per
> day. And it's now become slower when processing data. Is there any way
> to speed up? TIA.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Willy
>
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscri
Hi,
My MySQL server's data is increasing for about 1 million new records per
day. And it's now become slower when processing data. Is there any way
to speed up? TIA.
Regards,
Willy
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscrib
On Nov 27, 2007 10:21 AM, mos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 05:57 PM 11/26/2007, you wrote:
> >The second query might be faster due to caching.
>
> This can be verified by executing:
>
> RESET QUERY CACHE
>
> before executing the second query. This will clear the queries from the cache.
No need
At 05:57 PM 11/26/2007, you wrote:
The second query might be faster due to caching.
This can be verified by executing:
RESET QUERY CACHE
before executing the second query. This will clear the queries from the cache.
Mike
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.co
The second query might be faster due to caching.
On 11/26/07, Alexander Bespalov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a problem with SELECT speed. The first execution takes up to several
> minutes while the next (with the same statement) takes not more then several
6, 2007 10:03 AM
Subject: SELECT Speed
> Hi,
>
> I have a problem with SELECT speed. The first execution takes up to
several
> minutes while the next (with the same statement) takes not more then
several
> seconds.
>
> The statement example is:
> select nas.nasIpAddress, count(
Hi,
I have a problem with SELECT speed. The first execution takes up to several
minutes while the next (with the same statement) takes not more then several
seconds.
The statement example is:
select nas.nasIpAddress, count(distinct(acct.user_id)), count(*),
sum(acct.acctOutputOctets) from acct
Hi,
I have a problem with SELECT speed. The first execution takes up to
several minutes while the next (with the same statement) takes not more
then several seconds.
The statement example is:
select nas.nasIpAddress, count(distinct(acct.user_id)), count(*),
sum(acct.acctOutputOctets)
from acct
as a price, ranging from 1 to 10,000.
I have an index on both columns separately.
Have a look at these two queries, can someone tell me why there
is such a
difference in speed of execution? (Note difference in price
qualifier)
SELECT *
FROM `table1`
f you think
> >>>> about
> >>>> it.
> >>>>
> >>>> HTH,
> >>>> Dan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/10/07, Chris Hemmin
rom 1 to 10,000.
I have an index on both columns separately.
Have a look at these two queries, can someone tell me why there is
such a
difference in speed of execution? (Note difference in price
qualifier)
SELECT *
FROM `table1`
WHERE price >0
A
ve an index on both columns separately.
Have a look at these two queries, can someone tell me why there is
such a
difference in speed of execution? (Note difference in price
qualifier)
SELECT *
FROM `table1`
WHERE price >0
AND section =1
ORDER BY price
separately.
Have a look at these two queries, can someone tell me why there is
such a
difference in speed of execution? (Note difference in price qualifier)
SELECT *
FROM `table1`
WHERE price >0
AND section =1
ORDER BY price
LIMIT 0 , 30
Showin
a look at these two queries, can someone tell me why there is
such a
difference in speed of execution? (Note difference in price qualifier)
SELECT *
FROM `table1`
WHERE price >0
AND section =1
ORDER BY price
LIMIT 0 , 30
Showing rows 0 - 29 (128,978 total,
why there is such a
difference in speed of execution? (Note difference in price qualifier)
SELECT *
FROM `table1`
WHERE price >0
AND section =1
ORDER BY price
LIMIT 0 , 30
Showing rows 0 - 29 (128,978 total, Query took 0.9462 sec)
Explain output: 1 SIM
two queries, can someone tell me why there is such a
> difference in speed of execution? (Note difference in price qualifier)
>
>
>
> SELECT *
> FROM `table1`
> WHERE price >0
> AND section =1
> ORDER BY price
> LIMIT 0 , 30
>
&
both columns separately.
Have a look at these two queries, can someone tell me why there is
such a difference in speed of execution? (Note difference in price
qualifier)
SELECT *
FROM `table1`
WHERE price >0
AND section =1
ORDER BY price
LIMIT 0 ,
separately.
Have a look at these two queries, can someone tell me why there is such a
difference in speed of execution? (Note difference in price qualifier)
SELECT *
FROM `table1`
WHERE price >0
AND section =1
ORDER BY price
LIMIT 0 , 30
Showing rows 0 -
queries, can someone tell me why there is such a
difference in speed of execution? (Note difference in price qualifier)
SELECT *
FROM `table1`
WHERE price >0
AND section =1
ORDER BY price
LIMIT 0 , 30
Showing rows 0 - 29 (128,978 total, Query took 0.9462
;
To: "Octavian Rasnita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:27 AM
Subject: Re: inserting data - speed
The most obvious is to make sure you are doing bulk inserts, which you
may already be doing.
MyISAM tables use table locking, so you usually can'
The most obvious is to make sure you are doing bulk inserts, which
you may already be doing.
MyISAM tables use table locking, so you usually can't insert while a
search is occurring. There are a few exceptions and v5 (5.1?) has
another option you can set so inserts are always added to the e
At 04:37 AM 7/30/2007, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
Hi,
I made 2 similar programs that insert data continuously in 2 similar
MyISAM tables, each one in its own table.
Both tables have the same data (3.5 million records), but one of the
tables is update much slower.
The slower table is also access
Hi,
I made 2 similar programs that insert data continuously in 2 similar MyISAM
tables, each one in its own table.
Both tables have the same data (3.5 million records), but one of the tables
is update much slower.
The slower table is also accessed by other programs for getting data from
it.
a MySQL database in the hope that the MySQL
database would be better suited to the large size of some tables, and
would therefore return queries more quickly. It is now populated with the
data from the old Access tables.
So far, the MySQL speed has been very slow. I'm talking about 30 se
the hope that the MySQL database would be better suited to
the large size of some tables, and would therefore return queries more quickly.
It is now populated with the data from the old Access tables.
So far, the MySQL speed has been very slow. I'm talking about 30 seconds to
return the 2 re
database would be better suited to
the large size of some tables, and would therefore return queries more quickly.
It is now populated with the data from the old Access tables.
So far, the MySQL speed has been very slow. I'm talking about 30 seconds to
return the 2 records found by
SELECT *
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 2:10 AM
> To: 'Jerry Schwartz'; mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: RE: Speed of DECIMAL
>
> > From: Jerry Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > What is going slower, INSERT / UPDATES or SELECTS?
>
> Complex SELECTs
>
>
I'll second what Chris said, which is that all the joined columns
should be of the same type for speed.
Also, your substring and LIKE comparisons are going to be problematic,
as those are string operations, not numeric, and MySQL is having to
convert all the decimal values to strings b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Jerry Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
What is going slower, INSERT / UPDATES or SELECTS?
Complex SELECTs
CHAR should make for quite efficient processing, since to a
large degree nobody cares what's in there: it just slams the
data in, or does a simple byte
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:37 AM
> > To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> > Subject: Speed of DECIMAL
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was hoping to speed up my database operations a bit by changing
> > some colums in my
ngton Ave.
Farmington, CT 06032
860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:37 AM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Speed of DECIMAL
>
> Hi,
>
> I wa
ssage -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:36 AM
Subject: Speed of DECIMAL
Hi,
I was hoping to speed up my database operations a bit by changing some
colums in my database from CHAR(15) ASCII to DEC(15) UNSIGNED ZEROFILL. I
was expecting a speedup as DEC(
Hi,
I was hoping to speed up my database operations a bit by changing some
colums in my database from CHAR(15) ASCII to DEC(15) UNSIGNED ZEROFILL. I
was expecting a speedup as DEC(15) is more compact, and this columns are
also part of InnoDB indices. In contrary to my expectations, running my
+---++-+--+-+---+-+--++--++-+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name| Seq_in_index | Column_name |
Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type |
Comment |
+-
the dataset,
then MySQL has it right in this case.
- Original Message -
From: Brent Baisley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2006 10:52:47 AM GMT-0500 US/Eastern
Subject: Re: How to speed up query of indexed colu
of transferring the results.
- Original Message -
From: "bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:54 AM
Subject: How to speed up query of indexed column with 5M rows?
How to speed up query of indexed column with 5M rows?
I have a table with more than
: Monday, October 9, 2006 9:18:01 AM GMT-0500 US/Eastern
Subject: Re: How to speed up query of indexed column with 5M rows?
Dan Buettner wrote:
> bowen -
>
> Right now, it appears your performance hinges on I/O to the disk drive.
>
> The reason you are seeing fast performance when query
are a couple of things you can do to improve speed, probably a
> fair amount in this case:
> 1 - increase amount of RAM in machine. This will allow more data to
> be cached in memory, for faster access. When MySQL first starts up,
> performance may be slow, as it reads from disk to f
indexed field, it has to access the table data, not just
the index, so it hits the disk drive.
There are a couple of things you can do to improve speed, probably a
fair amount in this case:
1 - increase amount of RAM in machine. This will allow more data to
be cached in memory, for faster access
How to speed up query of indexed column with 5M rows?
I have a table with more than 5M rows. (400M .MYD 430M .MYI).
It took 27 seconds to do a common select...where... in the index column.
I can not bear the long run.
Vmstat show that system was bounded by IO busy.(Always more than 13000
bi/s
n it will start swaping...
but compute all values so that it dosen't...
In my.cnf set a MySQL directive like:
tmpdir = /mnt/mem_fs
This way MySQL will create temporary tables in memory rather than
creating them on disk !!!
I'm pretty sure you can figure out the speed improvment !
--
M
reating them on disk !!!
I'm pretty sure you can figure out the speed improvment !
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Gabriel PREDA
Senior Web Developer
On 10/5/06, David Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Its already been running 2 days. I probably need to index some more
ble -- is there anything that can be done to speed
this up?
dump and re-import is impractical.
Server is decent -- 4xcpu, 16GB RAM...
Thanks,
ds
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi! Please post the actual SHOW CREATE TABLE statements for the tables
in question. Thanks!
Jay
On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 12:03 +0500, Asif Lodhi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a multi-column index (TrnsxType, TrnsxDate, TrnsxID, DepartID).
> This index along with
> a multi-column index of some child ta
Hi,
I have a multi-column index (TrnsxType, TrnsxDate, TrnsxID, DepartID).
This index along with
a multi-column index of some child tables results in 8-column indexes
(TrnsxType, TrnsxDate, TrnsxID, DepartID, OrderType, OrderDate,
OrderNo, DepartmentID), etc.
I cannot eliminate Department ID be
It appears that every time I start query the event or the data table
gets Locked.
Could this have any affect on why it takes so long to delete records.
Grasping at straws,
Thank you,
Raymond
mysql> show processlist;
+-+---+---+---+-
Could the problem the Locked data table in this case?
mysql> show processlist;
+-+---+---+---+-+---
-+--+---
---+
| Id | User | Host
e tables can provide considerable amount of scalability.
- Original Message -
From: "Jacob, Raymond A Jr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 10:36 PM
Subject: How does one speed up delete-Again
I started the operation below on Friday at 1300hrs EST
DELE
I started the operation below on Friday at 1300hrs EST
DELETE data
FROM data, event
WHERE data.cid = event.cid
AND event.timestamp < "2006-05-01"
It is now Sunday 22:00hrs EST and the operation is still running.
Question: Should it take this long to delete 7.5 million records from a
4.5GB
T
Yes, I agree, it looks like there are indexes on the columns in
question in both tables.
As to when to use a temporary table - I haven't got a clear answer for you.
I wrote an app once that used temp tables, and it gained quite a speed
advantage due to my requirement to first insert a bun
-Original Message-
From: Dan Buettner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 15:48
To: Jacob, Raymond A Jr
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: How does one speed up delete.
Raymond, I would expect that adding an index on 'cid' column in your
'sidte
ing this delete mysql uses between 0-10%
Of the CPU. The delete is causing the mysql to use between 98-99% of the
CPU.
Any ideas on what I can do to speed up the Delete?
Thank you
Raymond
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the mysql to use between 98-99% of the
CPU.
Any ideas on what I can do to speed up the Delete?
Thank you
Raymond
ouping.State = advisor_counts.State
AND primary_grouping.Sub = advisor_counts.Sub
AND primary_grouping.ChapterType = advisor_counts.ChapterType;
- Original Message - From: "Jay Pipes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jesse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "mysql"
timing. However, if I can get your more efficient query working, I
would like to. Any ideas why it's not working?
Thanks,
Jesse
- Original Message -
From: "Jay Pipes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jesse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "mysql"
Sent
apterType
) AS advisor_counts
INNER JOIN State ST
ON primary_grouping.State = ST.State
ORDER BY
State
, Sub
, ChapterType;
This should reduce the number of queries actually executed to 3 instead
of > 700 million
Let us know the output of EXPLAIN and the speed difference.
Cheers,
--
Jay P
pterType) AS sq ORDER BY State, Sub, ChapterType
Anyway, thanks for your help.
Jesse
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Buettner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jesse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "mysql"
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Query S
, 'PRIMARY,IX_Schools1',
'IX_Schools1', '18', 'bpa.S.State,bpa.S.Sub', 65, 'Using where'
2, 'DEPENDENT SUBQUERY', 'C1', 'ref',
'PRIMARY,IX_Chapters_1,IX_Chapters_2', 'IX_Chapters_1', '
27;, 'S1', 'ref', 'PRIMARY,IX_Schools1',
'IX_Schools1', '18', 'bpa.S.State,bpa.S.Sub', 65, 'Using where'
2, 'DEPENDENT SUBQUERY', 'C1', 'ref',
'PRIMARY,IX_Chapters_1,IX_Chapters_2', '
ver, doing it in the MySQL Query Browser takes just as long (as one
would expect). The tables are all InnoDB. Is there anything else I can
do to help speed this query up?
Thanks,
Jesse
--
Dan Buettner
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To
On the chance that such a thing were actually happening, I converted all of
my tables over to MyISAM, because it says that it is "very fast", and I'm
not using Transactions anyway. If that's the only feature that InnoDB gives
me, I'd much rather have the speed. Anyw
-
From: Jesse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 4:28 PM
To: MySQL List
Subject: Query Speed
I have a query which I can execute in Microsoft SQL, and it's
instantaneous.
However, In MySQL, I've only been able to get it down to 48 seconds:
SELECT S.State, ST.StateN
L Query Browser takes just as long (as one would expect).
The tables are all InnoDB. Is there anything else I can do to help speed
this query up?
Thanks,
Jesse
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wednesday, June 21, 2006 5:55 PM
Subject: Need to speed up deletes
I need to delete 200,000 rows from an 8 million row MyISAM table using an index. It's taking 20 minutes which is quite slow. Is
there any way to speed it up? TIA
Mike
MySQL 4.1.10
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list a
first.
David
mos wrote:
I need to delete 200,000 rows from an 8 million row MyISAM table using
an index. It's taking 20 minutes which is quite slow. Is there any way
to speed it up? TIA
Mike
MySQL 4.1.10
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To
I need to delete 200,000 rows from an 8 million row MyISAM table using an
index. It's taking 20 minutes which is quite slow. Is there any way to
speed it up? TIA
Mike
MySQL 4.1.10
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:
1 - 100 of 805 matches
Mail list logo
