On Friday, January 6, 2006 1129, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I agree with Chander and still recommend application-level
>database accounts, not one or more direct MySQL logins per
>user. That's how most databases storing data with complex
>business rules maintain their data integrity. The SQL data
>
John Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/06/2006 10:21:40 AM:
<>
> >For users that won't connect to the database directly, you probably
> >don't want to create individual accounts - as if the user connects
> >directly they can perform operations outside the bounds of your
> >application (whe
On Wednesday, January 4, 2006 1313, Chander Ganesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Hoover wrote:
>
>>I need some advice re my choice of a storage engine for
>transaction-safe processing and including tables that are not
>transaction-safe within transactions.
>>
>>The problem: We need to insert re
John Hoover wrote:
I need some advice re my choice of a storage engine for transaction-safe
processing and including tables that are not transaction-safe within
transactions.
The problem: We need to insert related records into several different tables
and be sure that all the insertions succ
On Tuesday, January 3, 2006 1711, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>You are going to need to setup your own application-level
>locking scheme and rollback procedures if you don't want to use
>or cannot use the locking and transaction support built into
>InnoDb.
Well, I WANT to use InnoDB, but I guess t
John Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/31/2005 04:18:34 PM:
> I need some advice re my choice of a storage engine for transaction-
> safe processing and including tables that are not transaction-safe
> within transactions.
>
> The problem: We need to insert related records into several
> d
I need some advice re my choice of a storage engine for transaction-safe
processing and including tables that are not transaction-safe within
transactions.
The problem: We need to insert related records into several different tables
and be sure that all the insertions succeeded. It seems that t
Created QAID & QEID indices, now select time went down to .2787 seconds.
Sorry about top-posting, it's a nice feature in gmail where it hides the
text that was previously posted.
Here is the updated explain result.
mysql> EXPLAIN
-> SELECT *
-> FROM QA
-> LEFT JOIN Batch
-> ON Batch.QAID=QA.I
> > > MySQL to learn the migration process and executed the following:
> > > > >
> > > > > SELECT
> > > > > *
> > > > > FROM
> > > > > QA
> > > > > LEFT JOIN
> > > > > Batch
> >
atch.QAID=QA.ID
> > > > LEFT JOIN
> > > > QAErrors
> > > > ON
> > > > QAErrors.ID=Batch.QEID
> > > > WHERE
> > > > QA.ID <http://QA.ID> <http://QA.ID> <http://QA.ID>
> > > > BETWEEN
> > > > &#x
JOIN
> > > Batch
> > > ON
> > > Batch.QAID=QA.ID
> > > LEFT JOIN
> > > QAErrors
> > > ON
> > > QAErrors.ID=Batch.QEID
> > > WHERE
> > > QA.ID <http://QA.ID> <http://QA.ID>
> > > BETWEE
> > ORDER BY
> > QA.ID <http://QA.ID> <http://QA.ID>;
> >
> > M$ SQL executed and brought up result in 2 seconds
> > where MySQL took 801 seconds and where
> > Batch datalength is around 18.5 MB,
> > QAErrors is around 464KB and
> > QA is
EFT JOIN
> > > QAErrors
> > > ON
> > > QAErrors.ID=Batch.QEID
> > > WHERE
> > > QA.ID <http://QA.ID> <http://QA.ID >
> > > BETWEEN
> > > '106805'
> > > AND
> > > '107179'
&g
OIN
> > QAErrors
> > ON
> > QAErrors.ID=Batch.QEID
> > WHERE
> > QA.ID <http://QA.ID> <http://QA.ID>
> > BETWEEN
> > '106805'
> > AND
> > '107179'
> > ORDER BY
> > QA.ID <http://QA.ID>
cuted and brought up result in 2 seconds
> where MySQL took 801 seconds and where
> Batch datalength is around 18.5 MB,
> QAErrors is around 464KB and
> QA is around 3.5MB
>
> Which engine should I use and should I apply to all these tables or?
>
> Batch/QAErrors/QA is most frequent
rors is around 464KB and
QA is around 3.5MB
Which engine should I use and should I apply to all these tables or?
Batch/QAErrors/QA is most frequent used in database.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 09:39 AM 7/21/05, Scott Hamm wrote:
M$ SQL executed and brought up result in 2 seconds
where MySQL took 801 seconds and where
Batch datalength is around 18.5 MB,
QAErrors is around 464KB and
QA is around 3.5MB
Did you create an index?
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http
EN
'106805'
AND
'107179'
ORDER BY
QA.ID <http://QA.ID>;
M$ SQL executed and brought up result in 2 seconds
where MySQL took 801 seconds and where
Batch datalength is around 18.5 MB,
QAErrors is around 464KB and
QA is around 3.5MB
Which engine should I use and should I
18 matches
Mail list logo
