|
+-+--+
| 6 | yoda |
+-+--+
1 row in set (0,00 sec)
Regards,
m
-Original Message-
From: gregor kling [mailto:gregor.kl...@dvz.fh-giessen.de]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:54 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: strange behavior in mysql-server
Hello list,
I fight a strange behavior in mysql versions 5.1.49 and 5.1.51 -
maybe a fight against myself ;-)
The following query works exactly as assumed in version 5.1.41 with
the given testbed:
select * from test_nkomp_admin where host_id=6 and admin_id=yoda;
/* version 5.1.41 ubuntu
[mailto:gregor.kl...@dvz.fh-giessen.de]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:54 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: strange behavior in mysql-server 5.1.49 and 5.1.51
Hello list,
I fight a strange behavior in mysql versions 5.1.49 and 5.1.51 -
maybe a fight against myself ;-)
The following query works exactly
: strange behavior in mysql-server 5.1.49 and 5.1.51
Hello list,
I fight a strange behavior in mysql versions 5.1.49 and 5.1.51 -
maybe a fight against myself ;-)
The following query works exactly as assumed in version 5.1.41 with
the given testbed:
select * from test_nkomp_admin where host_id=6
behavior in mysql-server 5.1.49 and 5.1.51
Hello list,
I fight a strange behavior in mysql versions 5.1.49 and 5.1.51 -
maybe a fight against myself ;-)
The following query works exactly as assumed in version 5.1.41 with
the given testbed:
select * from test_nkomp_admin where host_id=6 and admin_id
In regards to this issue, I submitted a bug.
http://bugs.mysql.com/56157
nixofortune wrote:
Hi ALL,
I just start using Workbench 5.2.26 CE and this is a problem I have.
When I try to run a query with a case statement, columns with datetime
Type shown as BLOB in output window.
To see the
Hi ALL,
I just start using Workbench 5.2.26 CE and this is a problem I have.
When I try to run a query with a case statement, columns with datetime Type
shown as BLOB in output window.
To see the output data I have to right click inside of the cell, choose
Open Value in Viewer and see text.
ry/Calling the Procedure.
Regards,
VR Venugopal Rao
--- On Fri, 28/5/10, Manasi Save
manasi.s...@artificialmachines.com wrote:
From: Manasi Save manasi.s...@artificialmachines.comSubject: Strange behavior by MySQL Stored ProcedureTo:
mysql@lists.mysql.comDate: Friday, 28 May, 2010, 5:44 PM
Dear All,I have
ease check the same or let us know how you are executing the
Query/Calling the Procedure.
Regards,
VR Venugopal Rao
--- On Fri, 28/5/10, Manasi Save
manasi.s...@artificialmachines.com wrote:
From: Manasi Save manasi.s...@artificialmachines.comSubject: Strange behavior by MySQL Stored Procedur
mysql Version :- 5.1.42-community-log
mysql Connector/J Version :- mysql-connector-java-5.1.6-bin.jar
Sample Java Code Which Calls stored procedure :-
//get the connection to database
Connection dbConnection = getConnection();
//create the call for procedure
String procedureCallStmtStr =
:
From: Manasi Save manasi.s...@artificialmachines.com
Subject: Strange behavior by MySQL Stored Procedure
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Date: Friday, 28 May, 2010, 5:44 PM
Dear All,
I have one stored procedure Which inserts data into one table.
But sometimes it does not insert record
Dear All,
I have one stored procedure Which inserts data into one table.
But sometimes it does not insert record. This happens when I called it from java
application. But If I called same query from mysql command line. It executes
successfully.
Also I have one procedure which only retrieves
2010/5/28 Manasi Save manasi.s...@artificialmachines.com:
[...]
Or am I doing something wrong?
probably;
you better send us another e-mail writing at least:
- mysql version you are using
- mysql Connector/J version you are using
- piece of java code you are using to call the stored procedure
-
Hello Manasi,
If possible can you please send in the code that you mentioned (procedure or
trigger).
Please give a detailed technical explanation explaining the query which you
used from command line and the query used in the procedure. Please mention
the table structure, show table status and
Hello.
That seems like a bug:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=14543
Marko Domanovic wrote:
mysql 5.0.15-standard
UPDATE table SET fieldname = fieldname-1
when the fieldname is 0 gives me 4294967295
fieldname is integer(10) unsigned...
maybe it would be more logical the
Maybe it is because I am a programmer, but (unsigned) 0 - 1 = 4294967295.
What's the big deal?
Gleb Paharenko wrote:
Hello.
That seems like a bug:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=14543
Marko Domanovic wrote:
mysql 5.0.15-standard
UPDATE table SET fieldname = fieldname-1
mysql 5.0.15-standard
UPDATE table SET fieldname = fieldname-1
when the fieldname is 0 gives me 4294967295
fieldname is integer(10) unsigned...
maybe it would be more logical the expression to evaluate as 0, insted 2^32
..
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives:
I noticed rather interesting thing... If you deduct 1 from the 0 which is
stored in integer unsigned field, you get 2^32, not 0. I think that's how
things are not working with version 4, and want to ask is this behavior bug
or feature in mysql version 5, and is it customizable?
Greetings,
Hello.
On both 4.1.16 and 5.0.17 I've got the same results, however not 2^32,
but 18446744073709551615. 4.0 is deprecated and its results could be
different. Please provide exact SQL statement which you're using if you
still think that MySQL behaves weirdly with unsigned integers. In the
I don't think that this behaviour is very surprising. If you carry out a
mathmaticical operation that returns a result outside the data type's range
then it _must_ give you an incorrect result. The only alternative would be to
throw an error.
I know that the manual documents that after an
Hello.
According to:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/show-processlist.html
the temporary result set was larger than tmp_table_size and the thread
is changing the temporary table from in-memory to disk-based format to
save memory. I suggest you to play with the value of this variable
At 22:13 07.04.2005, Gleb Paharenko wrote:
Hello.
According to:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/show-processlist.html
the temporary result set was larger than tmp_table_size and the thread
But we get max. 10.000 long values in out result set.
is changing the temporary table from in-memory to
At 22:13 07.04.2005, Gleb Paharenko wrote:
Hello.
According to:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/show-processlist.html
the temporary result set was larger than tmp_table_size and the thread
is changing the temporary table from in-memory to disk-based format to
save memory. I suggest you to play
Hello.
Can you figure out in which state the queries from JBoss spend time the most?
You may use your own program and 'SHOW PROCESSLIST' statement or something
like:
mysqladmin -i 1 -r processlist.
I don't see a big difference between JBoss and a normal Java
application except JBoss
At 16:59 06.04.2005, Gleb Paharenko wrote:
Hello.
Can you figure out in which state the queries from JBoss spend time the most?
no, cause
You may use your own program and 'SHOW PROCESSLIST' statement or something
like:
mysqladmin -i 1 -r processlist.
I get this:
id: 52401
user: omk-write
host:
At 16:59 06.04.2005, Gleb Paharenko wrote:
Hello.
Can you figure out in which state the queries from JBoss spend time the most?
You may use your own program and 'SHOW PROCESSLIST' statement or something
like:
mysqladmin -i 1 -r processlist.
I don't see a big difference between JBoss and a normal
At 18:35 01.04.2005, Gleb Paharenko wrote:
Hello.
I don't have any ideas at least now. But additional information could be
helpful. Do you connect from JBoss to the slave or master server? Please use
We are conecting to the active mysql (normaly master).
SHOW PROCESSLIST to find in what state the
Hello.
I don't have any ideas at least now. But additional information could be
helpful. Do you connect from JBoss to the slave or master server? Please use
SHOW PROCESSLIST to find in what state the server threads waste their time.
If you find something interesting send it. Include also
Hi,
after extending our MySQL 4.0.23a installation to master-slave
configuration two specific queries sended from our JBoss are 25-30 times
slower.
In our J2EE application which runs under JBoss 3.2.2 we are generating own
queries by using a connection from JBoss connection pool. This are
Also, suggest you read
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/InnoDB_foreign_key_constraints.html and in
particular look to see if you're getting error 1005 or 105 returned. That was the
purpose of my original question to you.
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Victoria Reznichenko
Victoria and Robert
Thank you for your help. I think it is solved.
The error was (as Robert said) ERROR 1005: Can't create table
'./alex/jmf33.frm' (errno: 150)
I aslo checked SHOW INNODB STATUS where I was redirected to
http://www.innodb.com/ibman.html
There I found a link to a document
well, it seems to be fine without SUM and GROUP BY...
E.g.,
SELECT @a:=Charge, @b:=Cost, @[EMAIL PROTECTED] as Margin ...
produces expected results.
Emmett Bishop wrote:
Vadim,
if I'm not mistaken, you can't set a variable then use
it in the same statement.
See
P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Emmett Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: User variables + SUM + GROUP BY = strange behavior
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 05:50:12 -0400
well, it seems to be fine without SUM and GROUP BY...
E.g.,
SELECT @a:=Charge, @b:=Cost, @[EMAIL PROTECTED
Hello all,
Could anyone comment on User Variable behavior in the example below?
Thanks,
Vadim.
=
mysql SELECT
- LEFT(CallTime,10) AS CallDate,
- @a := SUM(Charge),
- @b := SUM(Cost),
-
Sorry, the message got garbled, here is a more digestible look:
-Original Message-
Hello all,
Could anyone comment on User Variable behavior in the example below?
Thanks,
Vadim.
=
mysql SELECT
-
Vadim,
if I'm not mistaken, you can't set a variable then use
it in the same statement.
See http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Variables.html
A little ways down the page...
The general rule is to never assign and use the same
variable in the same statement.
-- Tripp
--- Vadim P. [EMAIL
Dear Victoria Reznichenko,
Thanks for reply.
Could you tell me from where I can get patch to fix
this bug.
or I have to use Mysql 4.0/Mysql 5.0
with regards,
Udbhav Shah
=
Thinking is the Assets
Enterprise is the Way
Hard Work is the Solution
- Ignited Minds
Udbhav Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Victoria Reznichenko,
Thanks for reply.
Could you tell me from where I can get patch to fix
this bug.
or I have to use Mysql 4.0/Mysql 5.0
You can install latest available version, including the bugfix, from the development
source tree:
Udbhav Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using Mysql 4.1.1-alpha release on RH9,
I have used RPM provided on Mysql site to upgrade from
3.23 to 4.1.1
I have a very strange behavior of mysql server,when I
restart my server, it is not reading permission given
to user at Table Level from
Will be fixed in 4.1.2? When can we expect that to be out? Anyone with an
idea?
(Also facing this problem here)
- Original Message -
From: Victoria Reznichenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Strange behavior, Table Level
Terence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will be fixed in 4.1.2?
Yes, it's fixed in 4.1.2.
When can we expect that to be out? Anyone with an
idea?
Soon. Probably in two weeks.
- Original Message ---
--
For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita
This email is
Hello Everyone,
Using Mysql 4.1.1-alpha release on RH9,
I have used RPM provided on Mysql site to upgrade from
3.23 to 4.1.1
I have a very strange behavior of mysql server,when I
restart my server, it is not reading permission given
to user at Table Level from tables_priv.
Permission are still
Philip Markwalder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a few questions concerning stored procedures:
1. If I create a stored procedure (like the one below), why does the
returned values not change, though in the stored prcoedure the id has
been generated?
2. Is there any better way to hand
Hi
I have a few questions concerning stored procedures:
1. If I create a stored procedure (like the one below), why does the
returned values not change, though in the stored prcoedure the id has
been generated?
2. Is there any better way to hand over multiple values and how can I
unset global
Hi,
Can someone tell me why this query doesn't work?
SELECT IF(ISNULL(network.level), 4, network.level) AS level,
member.photo_level
FROM member
LEFT JOIN network ON (network.from_id=101 AND network.to_id=member.id)
ORDER BY member.last_login DESC
LIMIT 0,3
+---+-+
| level |
Batara Kesuma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone tell me why this query doesn't work?
SELECT IF(ISNULL(network.level), 4, network.level) AS level,
member.photo_level
FROM member
LEFT JOIN network ON (network.from_id=101 AND network.to_id=member.id)
ORDER BY member.last_login DESC
On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 09:07, Batara Kesuma wrote:
Hi,
Can someone tell me why this query doesn't work?
SELECT IF(ISNULL(network.level), 4, network.level) AS level,
member.photo_level
FROM member
LEFT JOIN network ON (network.from_id=101 AND network.to_id=member.id)
ORDER BY
Hi Diana,
SELECT IF(ISNULL(network.level), 4, network.level) AS level,
member.photo_level
FROM member
LEFT JOIN network ON (network.from_id=101 AND network.to_id=member.id)
ORDER BY member.last_login DESC
LIMIT 0,3
+---+-+
| level | photo_level |
I have a PHP page that takes data from a form and inserts it into a
table:
Show columns:
+++--+-+-+--
--+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra
|
On 20 Nov 2003 at 11:12, Jeff McKeon wrote:
However when I go to the database and do a select * from tablename;
the records are in the table in the reverse order!!
Even the auto increment is in reverse order...
If you wish to retrieve the data in a particular order you must use
order by
I understand how to use the Order By clause on a select, I'm trying to
better understand why does this happen on the insert.
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Dan Wilterding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Strange
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 8:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Strange behavior on insert
I understand how to use the Order By clause on a select, I'm trying to
better understand why does this happen on the insert.
Jeff
-Original Message-
From
Roger,
Thanks for your reply. Here's the next step: I've
added a date column to my table as follows:
++---+--++
| id | value | type | date |
++---+--++
| 1 | 6 | a| 2002-09-08 |
| 2 | 2 | b| 2003-10-01 |
| 3 | 5 |
* Ana Holzbach
Thanks for your reply. Here's the next step: I've
added a date column to my table as follows:
++---+--++
| id | value | type | date |
++---+--++
| 1 | 6 | a| 2002-09-08 |
| 2 | 2 | b| 2003-10-01 |
|
Hi Roger,
Thanks for the pointer.
CONCAT would be a nightmare to maintain, especially
with data where the values can have all sorts of
ranges, and where we could just as well be looking for
the value corresponding to the latest (or earliest)
date instead. It would just create too many cases
Sorry, I meant to say I've tried the subquery, not
the substring, on 4.1, and that's probably what we'll
use in the future.
select date, value, type from A a1 where value =
(select max(a2.value) from A a2 where a1.type =
a2.type);
Ana
--- Ana Holzbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Roger,
I've tried this on MySQL 4.0.15 and 4.1.0-alpha, with
the same result.
I have the following table A:
++---+--+
| id | value | type |
++---+--+
| 1 | 6 | a|
| 2 | 2 | b|
| 3 | 5 | b|
| 4 | 4 | a|
| 5 | 1 | c|
| 6 |10 | d
* Ana Holzbach
I've tried this on MySQL 4.0.15 and 4.1.0-alpha, with
the same result.
I have the following table A:
++---+--+
| id | value | type |
++---+--+
| 1 | 6 | a|
| 2 | 2 | b|
| 3 | 5 | b|
| 4 | 4 | a|
| 5 | 1
I get the following strange behavior with a user variable. @T has the value
0 to start; after adding 1 to @T a few times, it ends up with a clearly
incorrect value. I'd expect it to have a value of 280 after the second
select.
--
SELECT @T
--
+--+
| @T
At 11:41 +0200 10/25/02, Harald Fuchs wrote:
In article 000701c27193$1bf2bfa0$aa3fe7cb@jsheo,
Heo, Jungsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello, every one.
I Found a bug about CASE .. WHEN .. THEN..
mysql SELECT VERSION() ;
++
| VERSION() |
++
| 4.0.3-beta |
;
-Original Message-
From: Harald Fuchs [mailto:lists-mysql;news.protecting.net]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 5:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Strange behavior of CASE .. WHEN ... THEN
In article 000701c27193$1bf2bfa0$aa3fe7cb@jsheo,
Heo, Jungsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Hello, every one.
I Found a bug about CASE .. WHEN .. THEN..
mysql SELECT VERSION() ;
++
| VERSION() |
++
| 4.0.3-beta |
++
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
mysql select CASE NULL WHEN NULL THEN 0 ELSE 1 END AS RESULT ;
++
| RESULT |
++
| 1 |
replies. It really does not
make any sense to quote the list footer several times.
[...]
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [MYSQL] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 5:46 PM
Subject: Strange behavior of MySQL 3.23.51
I have
]; [MYSQL]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: Strange behavior of MySQL 3.23.51
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/Group_by_functions.html
...If you use a group function in a statement containing no GROUP BY
clause, it is equivalent to grouping on all rows...
So when you are asking about SELECT MAX
: Mikhail Entaltsev [mailto:mike_lynx;smtp.ru]
Gesendet: Montag, 21. Oktober 2002 18:01
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [MYSQL]
Betreff: Re: Strange behavior of MySQL 3.23.51
Stephan,
SELECT MAX( value )
FROM masterTABLE AS m
LEFT JOIN childTABLE1 AS c1
ON m.c1id = c1.id AND
c1.active = 'Yes
LeTortorec,
Tuesday, April 09, 2002, 12:17:06 AM, you wrote:
Leoen I have a table with the following fields:
Leoen id=autoincrement, int (11)
Leoen ts_h=decimal
Leoen ts_pid=int (11)
Leoen ts_day=text
Leoen There is a unique record where ts_pid=60 and ts_day=2002032800
I have a table with the following fields:
id=autoincrement, int (11)
ts_h=decimal
ts_pid=int (11)
ts_day=text
There is a unique record where ts_pid=60 and ts_day=2002032800
(ts_h=0).
If I do [update t_timesheet set ts_h=0 where ts_pid=60 and
ts_day=2002032800 ],
| 2002032800 |
++--+++
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
-Original Message-
From: LeTortorec, Jean-Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 4:17 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Strange behavior
I have a table with the following fields
I've had a few queries that worked strangely worked in Mysql monitor,
but did not work from PHP.
I was able to solve every one of them by ensure that the query in PHP did
not have any line breaks in it. It normally doesn't matter if there are
line breaks in the code, but on occassion, a
Hello,
I'm having trouble determining what's going wrong with a MySQL query that
I'm doing from PHP.
I have a table with the following columns:
id (int)
name (varchar 20)
starttime (int)
duration (int)
now, i have a row that has a starttime of 60, when i attempt to do the
following update
Questions about index
mysql show index from listing;
+-++-+--+-+-
--+-+--+
| Table | Non_unique | Key_name| Seq_in_index | Column_name |
Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part |
Howdy.
Some of the following is part rant. I know this email is too long, but
I want to be sure to give enough info so you folks have to ask me
for more info. All of it will probably be forwarded to the bugs list,
depending on what solutions I find.
I'm running SuSE 7.0 and I had mysql
Hi,
Im not sure wheter this is a bug ( and it will make me look silly ) but its
been annoying :)..
It could even have been fixed since 3.22.27 :) ( Yes! I will upgrade
tomorrow :)
I have these three tables:
***RULES***
CREATE TABLE rules
(id INT(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
owner
Peter Adamka writes:
Hi
1, I got packages from mysql site (3.23.33).
2, The mysqlGUI is 100% statical.
3, It crashes after I try to create database and then going to admin
panel.
4, I've found something that I've not seen. It end crashes with segfoult.
Hi
1, I got packages from mysql site (3.23.33).
2, The mysqlGUI is 100% statical.
3, It crashes after I try to create database and then going to admin
panel.
4, I've found something that I've not seen. It end crashes with segfoult.
Malmo
It's me again.
So I downloaded the statical compiled MysqlGGUI, and i can start it
without problem. I can also connect to mysql server and change database.
BUT: - When I try to create database the result is NULL :)
- After entering the admin panel it usually crashes after another
operation
Peter Adamka writes:
It's me again.
So I downloaded the statical compiled MysqlGGUI, and i can start it
without problem. I can also connect to mysql server and change database.
BUT: - When I try to create database the result is NULL :)
- After entering the admin panel it usually
Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Januar 2001 12:18
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: Strange behavior of MySQL 3.23.xx with GROUP BY ...
I found a very strange behaviour of MySQL 3.23.xx with GROUP BY
clause ...
I have a Table:
CREATE TABLE
I found a very strange behaviour of MySQL 3.23.xx with GROUP BY clause ...
I have a Table:
CREATE TABLE groupbyTEST (
fldNAME varchar(20) NOT NULL,
fldMONTH tinyint(4) DEFAULT '0' NOT NULL,
fldSALARY decimal(10,0) DEFAULT '0' NOT NULL,
fldDATE datetime DEFAULT '-00-00
tell you the same ... !
-Ursprungliche Nachricht-
Von: Bob Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Januar 2001 12:18
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: Strange behavior of MySQL 3.23.xx with GROUP BY ...
I found a very strange behaviour of MySQL 3.23.xx with GROUP
Hello,
I found a very strange behaviour of MySQL 3.23.xx with GROUP BY clause ...
I have a Table:
CREATE TABLE groupbyTEST (
fldNAME varchar(20) NOT NULL,
fldMONTH tinyint(4) DEFAULT '0' NOT NULL,
fldSALARY decimal(10,0) DEFAULT '0' NOT NULL,
fldDATE datetime DEFAULT '-00-00
81 matches
Mail list logo
