Re: Usefulness of mysql logs when using innodb?

You should keep it on in my opinion. On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Nico Sabbi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > I guess that when I'm using only Innodb and no replication I can > safely disable mysql's (bin-) log files (that grow to no end) because > Innodb has its own log files. Is it correc

Usefulness of mysql logs when using innodb?

Hi, I guess that when I'm using only Innodb and no replication I can safely disable mysql's (bin-) log files (that grow to no end) because Innodb has its own log files. Is it correct? Thanks, Nico -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe

Re: Optimization suggestions when only using Innodb

Please see my comments below : On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 14:06 -0600, Ross Anderson wrote: > I have read the suggestions for optimization for innodb however I'm > curious if anyone can help me understand which buffers are common (thus > used by innodb action) and which are specific to myiasm. The s

Optimization suggestions when only using Innodb

I have read the suggestions for optimization for innodb however I'm curious if anyone can help me understand which buffers are common (thus used by innodb action) and which are specific to myiasm. The server has 2GB of ram but runs multiple services. I have a number of different types of conne

Re: Using InnoDB on 2 OSes

Hello. I don't know if it is a good idea, but at least check that you have the same version of MySQL on Linux. On Windows, lower_case_table_names is set to 1 by default. See: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/moving.html Marcin Lewandowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I've

Re: Using InnoDB on 2 OSes

Marcin, - Original Message - From: "Marcin Lewandowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 4:36 AM Subject: Using InnoDB on 2 OSes Hi, I've got Win2k on one FAT32 partition, and I use MySQL 4.0.23 there. I've

Using InnoDB on 2 OSes

Hi, I've got Win2k on one FAT32 partition, and I use MySQL 4.0.23 there. I've got gentoo linux on second partition, and I want to use the same databases on linux's MySQL. I've configured linux's mysql to use databases from FAT32 partition, but InnoDB tables don't work. phpmyadmin show them as "

Re: Memory Leak using InnoDB ?

Geoffrey, - Original Message - From: "Geoffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 10:11 PM Subject: Re: Memory Leak using InnoDB ? > Dan, Heikki, > >

Re: Memory Leak using InnoDB ?

Dan, Heikki, - Original Message - From: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 11:39 AM Subject: Re: Memory Leak using InnoDB ? > Geoffrey, Dan, > > - Original Message - > From: "Dan N

Re: Memory Leak using InnoDB ?

Geoffrey, Dan, - Original Message - From: "Dan Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 5:27 AM Subject: Re: Memory Leak using InnoDB ? > In the last episode (Feb 07), Geoffrey said: > > I'm runnin

Re: Memory Leak using InnoDB ?

Geoffrey wrote: Hi, I'm running MySQL 4.0.17 with RH Linux 8 on Xeon 3.0/1GB RAM. One application has to access the database (1 connection to the DB is open on startup and left open). However this application performs a lot of queries on the DB. Main InnoDB table : 50.000 Rows Other InnoDB table

Re: Memory Leak using InnoDB ?

In the last episode (Feb 07), Geoffrey said: > I'm running MySQL 4.0.17 with RH Linux 8 on Xeon 3.0/1GB RAM. > > One application has to access the database (1 connection to the DB is > open on startup and left open). However this application performs a > lot of queries on the DB. > > Thanks to "

Memory Leak using InnoDB ?

Hi, I'm running MySQL 4.0.17 with RH Linux 8 on Xeon 3.0/1GB RAM. One application has to access the database (1 connection to the DB is open on startup and left open). However this application performs a lot of queries on the DB. Main InnoDB table : 50.000 Rows Other InnoDB tables (about 8) : Fr

Re: using innodb

I can use innodb in Redhat9 but failed in redhat 7.2. I find the version of mysql in both redhat is identical. I wonder why it is the case. Version of mysql mysqladmin Ver 8.23 Distrib 3.23.56, for redhat-linux-gnu on i386 Copyright (C) 2000 MySQL AB & MySQL Finland AB & TCX DataKonsult AB This

Re: using innodb

On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 12:34:54PM +0800, unplug wrote: > I use rpm to update the previous version. I can use innodb in redhat 9 > with version 2.23.56. But it failed in redhat 7.2. I wonder it is the > kernel problem. Why would you suspect the kernel? How did it fail? > BTW, I want to ask

Re: using innodb

I use rpm to update the previous version. I can use innodb in redhat 9 with version 2.23.56. But it failed in redhat 7.2. I wonder it is the kernel problem. BTW, I want to ask whether I can do replication in the following case. innodb (master) --replication --> myisam (slave) unplug Jerem

Re: using innodb

On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 03:08:42PM +0800, unplug wrote: > Hi all, > > I am trying to use mysql with innodb. After I set it up as follow. > The db start failed. > I wonder why it failed to use innodb. Does anyone can tell me? > > OS: redhat 7.2 with kernel 2.4.20-18.7 > mysql version: 3.23.

using innodb

Hi all, I am trying to use mysql with innodb. After I set it up as follow. The db start failed. I wonder why it failed to use innodb. Does anyone can tell me? OS: redhat 7.2 with kernel 2.4.20-18.7 mysql version: 3.23.56 In mysql.log /usr/libexec/mysqld: unrecognized option `--innodb_da

Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not locked with LOCKTABLES"

AIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not locked with LOCKTABLES" > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Heikki, > > The application which is having this problem is used to

Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not locked with LOCKTABLES"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heikki, The application which is having this problem is used to read an XML document and update a database. The application is part of a website, so there are always other interactions with the database while the "loa

Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not locked with LOCKTABLES"

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copies to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject:Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not locked with LOCKTABLES" Date sent: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:59:22

Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not locked with LOCKTABLES"

7; AND SecondaryID = 'CKCBSBF2994311' 7 Query COMMIT 7 Query SET autocommit=1 - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL

Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not locked with LOCKTABLES"

how to narrow the focus of our research would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Steff On 13 Feb 2003 at 20:03, Heikki Tuuri wrote: From: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copies to: <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not locked with LOCKTABLES"

Steff, - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not locked with LOCKTABLES" > Heik

Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not locked with LOCKTABLES"

: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mark Matthews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copies to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not lo

Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not locked with LOCKTABLES"

Mark, Steff, - Original Message - From: "Mark Matthews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:09 AM Subject: Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not loc

Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not locked with LOCKTABLES"

hews wrote: Date sent: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:09:16 -0600 From: Mark Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copies to: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, &

Re: Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not locked with LOCKTABLES"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, We are experiencing severe problems when running MySql with INNODB in a production environment. Applications which work fine under light load fail when under production load. Our MySql environment is as follows

Transaction problems using InnoDB, "not locked with LOCKTABLES"

Hello, We are experiencing severe problems when running MySql with INNODB in a production environment. Applications which work fine under light load fail when under production load. Our MySql environment is as follows: OS Platform: Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 Machine description: C

Re: Serious performance problems when using InnoDB

At 05:53 AM 3/22/2002, you wrote: >Hi, I'm using a db with few tables, one of which is reported below: > > CREATE TABLE `keywords` ( > `keyword` varchar(128) NOT NULL default '', > `codice` varchar(16) NOT NULL default '', > `timestamp` int(11) NOT NULL default '0', > `soundekw` varchar

Serious performance problems when using InnoDB

Hi, I'm using a db with few tables, one of which is reported below: CREATE TABLE `keywords` ( `keyword` varchar(128) NOT NULL default '', `codice` varchar(16) NOT NULL default '', `timestamp` int(11) NOT NULL default '0', `soundekw` varchar(32) NOT NULL default '', PRIMARY KEY (`key

crashed queries cause big database slowdown - using innodb

Hi, I'm building an application which uses Innodb. It is very imperative that all data is processed as quickly as it possibly can and so the problem I have is quite a concern. My perl script executes the queries however if if make an error in the code and the script crashes half way through th

Re: Using InnoDB

Deryck, in MySQL -Max the only thing that differs from MySQL is the binary mysqld. To install MySQL -Max in place of MySQL you only need to replace the binary. You do not need to uninstall MySQL-3.23.41. If you have defined InnoDB options in my.cnf like explained in the manual http://www.innodb.

Using InnoDB

Yes, I know, go look at the web site, but it's too confusing :(. I have found out how to setup and start with MySQL and InnoDB but I have no clue how to make my tables/databases InnoDB type. Oh, and, I just upgraded to MySQL Max 3.23.42 for Win32 but all of the previous stuff from MySQL 3.23.41

Re: [Got error 139 from table handler using InnoDB]

In the last episode (Aug 02), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > I'm new to the list so please forgive me if this problem has already > been solved. > > I've been using MySQL for development for sometime. Up until now I've > been using MyISAM tables. I've decided to switch to InnoDB because > some table f

Re: [Got error 139 from table handler using InnoDB]

Heikki, I've downloaded the latest InnoDB (3.23.40b) and recompiled mysql 3.23.40. Unfortunately I'm still getting the same error. Do I still need to increase UNIV_PAGE_SIZE and UNIV_PAGE_SIZE_SHIFT in /path/to/mysql/innobase/include/univ.i? If so, how large can I set these values? (I increased

[Got error 139 from table handler using InnoDB]

Hi! I'm new to the list so please forgive me if this problem has already been solved. I've been using MySQL for development for sometime. Up until now I've been using MyISAM tables. I've decided to switch to InnoDB because some table files (*.MYD) are approaching the OS limit. I get the above e

Re: [Got error 139 from table handler using InnoDB]

My mistake. The latest InnoDB works as expected. Sorry to clutter the list with my own lack of attention. Never compile the same code on 2 different boxes with different operating systems and different configurations at the same time. Thanks for all your work Heikki! Cheers, Brian > Heikki, >

Re: [Got error 139 from table handler using InnoDB]

Brian, the support for > 8000 byte rows in InnoDB is not yet in binary distributions of MySQL. To use < 4 GB rows you have to download InnoDB-3.23.39b source from www.innodb.com replace it to MySQL-3.23.40 (or .39) source and recompile. I am right now compiling and testing the new InnoDB-3.23.40

Re: error using InnoDB with LOAD DATA

George, current binary versions do not yet support rows of size > 8000 bytes. The next binary version 3.23.41 will do it. If you want right now to use > 8000 byte rows, you have to download the source distribution innodb-3.23.39b from www.innodb.com, replace the InnoDB files in the source distri

RE: Using InnoDb table type - Urgent help required

: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Using InnoDb table type - Urgent help required At 16:27 Uhr -0700 20.7.2001, Rashmi Mittal wrote: >innodb_data_file_path=ibdata1:200M >innodb_data_home_dir=f:/mysql/innodb/ibdata >innodb_log_group_home_dir=f:/mysql/innodb/iblogs > >

Re: Using InnoDb table type - Urgent help required

At 16:27 Uhr -0700 20.7.2001, Rashmi Mittal wrote: >innodb_data_file_path=ibdata1:200M >innodb_data_home_dir=f:/mysql/innodb/ibdata >innodb_log_group_home_dir=f:/mysql/innodb/iblogs > >The directories specified in the above variables exist. >However when I try to run the service I get the error "C

Using InnoDb table type - Urgent help required

Hi, I am using mySQL on Windows 2000. I need to use the InnoDb table type to get transaction support. I had initially installed mysql and was using the ISAM table type and everything was working fine. My NT service was configured to run the mysqld-nt.exe. For using the InnoDb type I un-installed

Re: using InnoDB ==> transactions (rollback) don't work

! I'm doing some evaluating on MySQL using InnoDB tables (I need transactions). However, I failed admirably in trying to do a "rollback". I read in the InnoDB manual that several statements (like ALTER, CREATE, ...) cause an implicit COMMIT, but it seems like it is doing the s

Anyone using InnoDB on LVM?

e2fs portion of the server and it still had problems. > >Do you know of anyone successfully using InnoDB with just LVM? > >Jamie > >-Original Message- >From: Heikki Tuuri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 11:24 AM >To: Jamie Krasnoo;