In news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Daevid Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because we're a huge enterprise product, with 3 databases of 200
tables each.
We are migrating from MYISM to INNODB and keeping track of that value
isn't something we thought we'd need to do. Plus it seems like
something we
-Original Message-
From: Maciej Dobrzanski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:46 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Why doesn't the InnoDB count() match table status?
MyISAM and InnoDB (and there are plenty more). RDBMS is not an Office
spreadsheet
On 3/27/07, Tim Lucia wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Maciej Dobrzanski
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:46 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Why doesn't the InnoDB count() match table status?
MyISAM and InnoDB (and there are plenty more). RDBMS is not an Office
Aside from the incredibly annoying fact that InnoDB tables don't store a
total COUNT(), my question is... Why are these numbers different? I could
easily parse out the second query which is REDICULOUSLY faster. BTW, why
doesn't mySQL just 'alias' the first query behind the scenes for us and
parse
In the last episode (Mar 26), Daevid Vincent said:
Aside from the incredibly annoying fact that InnoDB tables don't store a
total COUNT(), my question is... Why are these numbers different? I could
easily parse out the second query which is REDICULOUSLY faster. BTW, why
doesn't mySQL just
In the last episode (Mar 26), Daevid Vincent said:
Aside from the incredibly annoying fact that InnoDB tables
don't store a
total COUNT(), my question is... Why are these numbers
different? I could
easily parse out the second query which is REDICULOUSLY
faster. BTW, why
doesn't
In the last episode (Mar 26), Daevid Vincent said:
In the last episode (Mar 26), Daevid Vincent said:
Aside from the incredibly annoying fact that InnoDB tables don't
store a total COUNT(), my question is... Why are these numbers
different? I could easily parse out the second query
Daevid Vincent wrote:
Is mySQL planning on fixing this BUG. YES -- it is a BUG. A BIG FAT HARRY
ONE.
I think you mean 'hairy', not 'harry'. There are no 'harry' bugs, apart
from that British fool who's in line for the throne.
It's completely stupid that I can't query and get an
Is mySQL planning on fixing this BUG. YES -- it is a BUG. A
BIG FAT HARRY
ONE.
I think you mean 'hairy', not 'harry'. There are no 'harry'
bugs, apart
LOL! Doh! Yeah. I was so blinded by rage that I forgot my spelling.
It's completely stupid that I can't query and get an
You're about 5 years too late for this converation, but I recall it
Really? People have just happily accepted this absurd limitation for _five_
years? Wow.
having to do with the fact that when you're on a table that supports
transactions, you don't know exactly how many records a particular
On Mon, March 26, 2007 16:21, Daevid Vincent said:
You're about 5 years too late for this converation, but I recall it
Really? People have just happily accepted this absurd limitation for
_five_
years? Wow.
having to do with the fact that when you're on a table that supports
transactions,
Hi Daevid,
Ugh. How about not going berserk on the public mailing list?
We can understand that you're upset that you didn't read the manual
before starting a MyISAM to InnoDB conversion. You didn't do your
research and now you're being hit by a very simple (and not really all
that
12 matches
Mail list logo
