Am 28.05.2014 22:39, schrieb Rajeev Prasad:
> (re-sending, i got err from yahoo)
your previous message made it off-list to me
*don't use reply-all on mailing lists*
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
(re-sending, i got err from yahoo)
thx Reindl,
I am using phpMyAdmin, i looked closely and found "index" is this index you are
talking about? (earlier i used "Primary").
My further question is: the index key here is going to be epoch system time. I
currently have it as integer 10. The table wi
Am 28.05.2014 22:29, schrieb Rajeev Prasad:
> I am using phpMyAdmin, i looked closely and found "index" is this index you
> are talking about? (earlier i used "Primary").
surely
primary is a uniqe key, honestly consider to read some manuals
> My further question is: the index key here is goin
Am 28.05.2014 21:43, schrieb Rajeev Prasad:
> I am going to have a big table with lot of records, to expedite searching i
> wanted to index on a key field (which is numeric value). BUT, there will be
> records which will have same value for the key field (other columns will be
> different).
>
Gurus,
I am going to have a big table with lot of records, to expedite searching i
wanted to index on a key field (which is numeric value). BUT, there will be
records which will have same value for the key field (other columns will be
different).
so how can i do this? right now, i am getting er
Possibly worse than that, since it will rebuild the 'first' index again.
> -Original Message-
> From: mos [mailto:mo...@fastmail.fm]
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 7:51 AM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: Indexing about 40 Billion Entries
>
> A
you a lot. The first indexing process finished after about 13
hours, so I think the problem is solved now.
I set the myisam_sort_bufffer_size to 10GB.
The "first indexing process"???
You should have created all of your indexes with one Alter statement.
Otherwise it will take another
At 02:04 AM 6/21/2012, you wrote:
Thank you a lot. The first indexing process finished after about 13
hours, so I think the problem is solved now.
I set the myisam_sort_bufffer_size to 10GB.
The "first indexing process"???
You should have created all of your indexes with one Alter
On 20/06/2012 11:45, Christian Koetteritzsch wrote:
Hi guys,
As the title says I'm trying to index 40 billion entries with two indexes on a
server with 16 cores and 128GB RAM. The table is the one below and it is a
myisam table. The *.myd file is about 640GB
Hiya
I am unable to help. But
Thank you a lot. The first indexing process finished after about 13
hours, so I think the problem is solved now.
I set the myisam_sort_bufffer_size to 10GB.
For the query I will adjust it to your version.
Am 20.06.2012 23:32, schrieb Rick James:
SELECT ruid1, ruid2, overlap FROM l4_link WHERE
use
cases where PARTITION shines. (I have not seen such [yet] in your application.)
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Koetteritzsch [mailto:ckoetteritz...@e-humanities.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:42 PM
> To: Rick James
> Cc: Ananda Kumar; mysql@lists.mysql.co
(ruid1, ruid2) will help for AND, but not at all for OR.
> -Original Message-
> From: Shawn Green [mailto:shawn.l.gr...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 2:30 PM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: Indexing about 40 Billion Entries
>
> On 6/20/20
yisam_stats_method| nulls_unequal |
| myisam_use_mmap |
OFF |
+---++
8 rows in set (0.00 sec)
The temp folder has about 16tb free space.
When I start the indexing process, i
ul. If you have more
questions than you can ask them.
Kind regards
Christian
-Original Message-
From: Ananda Kumar [mailto:anan...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:37 AM
To: Christian Koetteritzsch
Cc:mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Indexing about 40 Billion Entries
looks
com
Subject: Re: Indexing about 40 Billion Entries
looks like the value that you give for myisam_max_sort_size is not
enough for the index creation and hence it doing a "REPAIR WITH
KEYCACHE"
Use the below query to set the min values required for
myisam_max_sort_size to avoid "
static?
What are the semantics of the fields?
> -Original Message-
> From: Ananda Kumar [mailto:anan...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:37 AM
> To: Christian Koetteritzsch
> Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: Indexing about 40 Billion Entries
>
&g
|
> | myisam_max_sort_file_size | 9223372036853727232 |
> | myisam_mmap_size | 18446744073709551615|
> | myisam_recover_options | BACKUP |
> | myisam_repair_threads | 1 |
> | myisam_sort_buffer_size| 8388608 |
> | myisam_st
et (0.00 sec)
The temp folder has about 16tb free space.
When I start the indexing process, it copies the 640Gb into a temp file
and then starts with "repair with keycache".
On the internet I found that if it says "repair with keycache" you shold
increase the "myisam_ma
Thanks Gavin and Joerg, that was very helpful!
-- Jonas
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Joerg Bruehe wrote:
> Hi Neil, all!
>
>
> Tompkins Neil wrote:
> > So if you have individual indexes for example field_1, field_2 and
> field_3
> > etc and then perform a search like
> >
> > WHERE field_1 =
> -Original Message-
>> From: Tompkins Neil [mailto:neil.tompk...@googlemail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 8:54 AM
>> To: Joerg Bruehe
>> Cc: [MySQL]
>> Subject: Re: Indexing question
>>
>> Jörg
>>
>> Thanks for the usef
ssage-
From: Tompkins Neil [mailto:neil.tompk...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 8:54 AM
To: Joerg Bruehe
Cc: [MySQL]
Subject: Re: Indexing question
Jörg
Thanks for the useful reply. Maybe I can EXPLAIN my select queries
for you
to advise if any changes need to be made ?
Regards
: Re: Indexing question
Jörg
Thanks for the useful reply. Maybe I can EXPLAIN my select queries for you
to advise if any changes need to be made ?
Regards
Neil
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Joerg Bruehe wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> Neil Tompkins wrote:
> > Thanks for your reply. S
Jörg
Thanks for the useful reply. Maybe I can EXPLAIN my select queries for you
to advise if any changes need to be made ?
Regards
Neil
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Joerg Bruehe wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> Neil Tompkins wrote:
> > Thanks for your reply. So should we create individual indexes on each
Hi!
Neil Tompkins wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. So should we create individual indexes on each
> field or a multiple column index ??
This question cannot be answered without checking and measuring your
installation. The decision whether to create an index is always an act
of balancing:
- If t
Following on from my previous email I have columns containing numbers
which are then used in SUM and MIN/ MAX functions should these be
indexed too ?
On 3 Oct 2010, at 16:44, Joerg Bruehe wrote:
Hi Neil, all!
Tompkins Neil wrote:
So if you have individual indexes for example field_1, fie
Thanks for your reply. So should we create individual indexes on each
field or a multiple column index ??
On 3 Oct 2010, at 16:44, Joerg Bruehe wrote:
Hi Neil, all!
Tompkins Neil wrote:
So if you have individual indexes for example field_1, field_2 and
field_3
etc and then perform a s
Hi Neil, all!
Tompkins Neil wrote:
> So if you have individual indexes for example field_1, field_2 and field_3
> etc and then perform a search like
>
> WHERE field_1 = 10
> AND field_3 = 'abc'
>
> This wouldn't improve the search ? You have to create a index for all
> possible combined field
-
> From: Jonas Galvez [mailto:jonasgal...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:48 AM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Indexing question
>
> Suppose I wanted to be able to perform queries against three columns of my
> table: 'user_id', 'product_id
er 01, 2010 11:48 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Indexing question
Suppose I wanted to be able to perform queries against three columns of my
table: 'user_id', 'product_id' and 'created'. Most of the time I'll just be
range-selecting records from the table ordering by &#x
Suppose I wanted to be able to perform queries against three columns of my
table: 'user_id', 'product_id' and 'created'. Most of the time I'll just be
range-selecting records from the table ordering by 'created'. But I may also
want to select where 'user_id' = something and 'product_id' in (list, o
muhammad subair wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
Hey, all. I'm trying to "get" indexing -- like, when do you specify an
index name during index creation, is index use implicit or explicit, and,
honestly, how exactly does it work, anyway? I&#
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
> Hey, all. I'm trying to "get" indexing -- like, when do you specify an
> index name during index creation, is index use implicit or explicit, and,
> honestly, how exactly does it work, anyway? I've
Hey, all. I'm trying to "get" indexing -- like, when do you specify an
index name during index creation, is index use implicit or explicit, and,
honestly, how exactly does it work, anyway? I've been RTFM'ing, but
haven't found anything that really laid it out in bl
In the last episode (Jul 26), buf...@biffco.net said:
> Using version 5.0.6x on RH. The question I have is about the updating of
> indexes.
>
> Say I have a table with a primary key and one or more indexes. I run an
> INSERT statement by way of a call to mysql_real_query() in the C api. If
> that
> Using version 5.0.6x on RH. The question I have is about the updating of
> indexes.
>
> Say I have a table with a primary key and one or more indexes. I run an
> INSERT statement by way of a call to mysql_real_query() in the C api. If
> that function call returns zero, i.e., indicating success, d
Using version 5.0.6x on RH. The question I have is about the updating of
indexes.
Say I have a table with a primary key and one or more indexes. I run an
INSERT statement by way of a call to mysql_real_query() in the C api. If
that function call returns zero, i.e., indicating success, does that me
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Mike Spreitzer wrote:
> Today's instance finished shortly after I sent the email below. BTW, here
> are some specifics on the table (which uses MyISAM). Thursday's instance
> has 11 GB of data and 0.78 GB of index. Today's instance has 26 GB of
> data and 1.8 GB
preitzer/Watson/i...@ibmus
06/27/09 09:48 AM
To
mos
cc
mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject
Re: Indexing dynamics in MySQL Community Edition 5.1.34
Yes, all the indices are added in one "ALTER TABLE" statement. Thursday's
incarnation took about 1.5 hours, on a table created fro
lists.mysql.com
cc
Subject
Re: Indexing dynamics in MySQL Community Edition 5.1.34
Mike,
I re-posted your Show Status to the group to see if anyone can
offer
a way to speed up the indexing for you.
BTW, you are adding ALL of the indexes to the table using ONE sql
statement
right? An
mo...@fastmail.fm (mos) writes:
> At 12:37 AM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
...
> >my.cnf based on my-huge.cnf, expanding key_buffer to 8G,
> >myisam_sort_buffer_size to 256M, and putting tmpdir on the fiber channel
> >disk.
>
> You mean "key_buffer_size" don't you and not "key_buffer"? If you
> a
Hi Walter,
Walter Heck - OlinData.com wrote:
Hey Tim, all
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Little,
Timothy wrote:
Why, you might ask, index on physmessage_id? Because then the db won't
have to do a fetch on items from the table since it's in the INDEX
itself, saving any unnecessary reads.
F
.)
Wow.
Thanks for the help, all!
-Ken
On Wed, June 24, 2009 12:03 pm, Little, Timothy wrote:
> To answer your questions in no particular order, YES you can speed it up
> with indexing.
>
> You might want to first create an index on ( blocksize AND
> physmessage_id ).
>
> Why, yo
>From: Jerry Schwartz [mailto:jschwa...@the-infoshop.com]
>Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 10:22 AM
>To: 'Moon's Father'; 'mos'
>Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
>Subject: RE: Indexing dynamics in MySQL Community Edition 5.1.34
>
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>-Original Message-
>From: Moon's Father [mailto:yueliangdao0...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:12 AM
>To: mos
>Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
>Subject: Re: Indexing dynamics in MySQL Community Edition 5.1.34
>
>Who can please tell me what is mean o
Who can please tell me what is mean of "The db storage is on fiber
channel."?
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:05 AM, mos wrote:
> Mike,
> I re-posted your Show Status to the group to see if anyone can offer a
> way to speed up the indexing for you.
>
> BTW, you are add
Mike,
I re-posted your Show Status to the group to see if anyone can offer
a way to speed up the indexing for you.
BTW, you are adding ALL of the indexes to the table using ONE sql statement
right? And not a separate SQL statement to build each index?
Mike
At 02:01 AM 6/25/2009, you
>-Original Message-
>From: Mike Spreitzer [mailto:mspre...@us.ibm.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:38 AM
>To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
>Subject: Re: Indexing dynamics in MySQL Community Edition 5.1.34
>
>Actually, my characterization of the current state is wrong.
At 12:37 AM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
Actually, my characterization of the current state is wrong. It appears
that one core is completely busy, I suppose MySQL does this indexing work
in a single thread. Is it reasonable for indexing to be CPU bound?
my.cnf based on my-huge.cnf, expanding
Actually, my characterization of the current state is wrong. It appears
that one core is completely busy, I suppose MySQL does this indexing work
in a single thread. Is it reasonable for indexing to be CPU bound?
Thanks,
Mike Spreitzer
Mike Spreitzer/Watson/i...@ibmus
06/25/09 01:30 AM
how full processlist |
++--+---+--+-+--+---+-+
OK, so it is still indexing. Then I start up `vmstat` again, and it shows
very different dynamics:
# vmstat 5
procs ---memory
Hey Tim, all
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Little,
Timothy wrote:
> Why, you might ask, index on physmessage_id? Because then the db won't
> have to do a fetch on items from the table since it's in the INDEX
> itself, saving any unnecessary reads.
FYI: That only holds true for InnoDB, not for
To answer your questions in no particular order, YES you can speed it up
with indexing.
You might want to first create an index on ( blocksize AND
physmessage_id ).
Why, you might ask, index on physmessage_id? Because then the db won't
have to do a fetch on items from the table since it
ithout the
physmessage_id:
select blocksize from dbmail_messageblks where blocksize < 50;
That took 14 seconds. A bit more in my timeframe. Can I optimize this
with indexing? Should I be using a different DB engine? Is there a
site/book I should be learning DBA fundamentals from that might offer m
CREATE TABLE mailer_student_status (
> > student_id decimal(22,0) NOT NULL default '0',
> > param varchar(128) NOT NULL default '',
> > value varchar(128) default NULL,
> > PRIMARY KEY (student_id,param).
> > KEY idx_value (value)
> > )
ewen fortune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Following on from what Mike mentioned, indexing all columns does not
>> really help as MySQL will at most use one index for a query, so its
>> important to pick your indexes carefully and consider const
, Sep 6, 2008 at 1:16 AM, ewen fortune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Following on from what Mike mentioned, indexing all columns does not
>> really help as MySQL will at most use one index for a query, so its
>> important to pick your indexes carefully
dent_id,param).
KEY idx_value (value)
)
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 1:16 AM, ewen fortune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following on from what Mike mentioned, indexing all columns does not
> really help as MySQL will at most use one index for a query, so its
> important to
Hi,
Following on from what Mike mentioned, indexing all columns does not
really help as MySQL will at most use one index for a query, so its
important to pick your indexes carefully and consider constructing
composite indexes. An index on a single column may not even be used
due to poor
there any specific reason for not indexing all columns
> of a table. whats the impact on the performance. Although indexing is meant
> for getting great performance. So, why indexing all columns is not
> feasible. (Read in docs that all columns should not be indexed)
>
> --
>
> Krishna Chandra Prajapati
>
Hi all,
I am looking for, is there any specific reason for not indexing all columns
of a table. whats the impact on the performance. Although indexing is meant
for getting great performance. So, why indexing all columns is not
feasible. (Read in docs that all columns should not be indexed
it should be. I'm assuming this is
because it's still rebuilding indexes on the imported tables.
Is there any way to see the indexing status so I can gauge how far
it's got?
Thanks.
-Stut
Thanks.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives
here any way to see the indexing status so I can gauge how far it's
got?
Thanks.
-Stut
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I just finished restoring a 22gig SQL dump but the server is not
performing anywhere near where it should be. I'm assuming this is
because it's still rebuilding indexes on the imported tables.
Is there any way to see the indexing status so I can gauge how far
it'
PK and text field seems to be the only sensible
decision. Thanks in advance,
Christian
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Arthur Fuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the size of the text field you're fulltext indexing? How often is
> that index used? You might be best off
What is the size of the text field you're fulltext indexing? How often is
that index used? You might be best off to create a table containing only
that column and a PK that is equal to the PK in the original table. You
might also keep a portion of the text field (say 50 characters) in the
ori
Hi,
I have created a rather large table containing about 16M records. Most
of the indexed fields are smallint, but there is one field that is a
text field that I am using fulltext indexing on. The total size of the
smallint indexes is only about 30 MB, but the fulltext index brings
the total index
y popular in mysql list!
--
Artem
-Original Message-
From: Artem Kuchin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:19 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Indexing one byte flags - what implementattion is better
Maybe someone could provide a good resonable
input on th
me. So for CASE 2 you'll need a third object to keep track of the
highest value for id.
-Original Message-
From: Artem Kuchin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:19 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Indexing one byte flags - what implementattion is better
Maybe someone could provide a good resonable
input on this issue.
Let's say i have a table products
CASE 1:
table: products
id int unsigned not null,
name char(128) not null,
f_new tinyint not null
id - is basically the id of a product
name - is the name of a product
f_new - is a one byte fla
>
>, as far as i can see, from mysql 5.0 and upper it is possible create
>index using functions.
>
>http://www.faqs.org/docs/ppbook/r24254.htm
>
>But i keep having problems with the exemple from the link. Is there any bug
>in mysql 5.0.24a-log?
The above website says:
"Practical PostgreSQL"
, as far as i can see, from mysql 5.0 and upper it is possible create
index using functions.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/ppbook/r24254.htm
But i keep having problems with the exemple from the link. Is there any bug
in mysql 5.0.24a-log?
2007/11/13, Martijn Tonies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>mysql>
Hi
I've created a function that return a float value the code for it is :
create function IDR(pin1 varchar(20),pin4 varchar(20),pin6 varchar(20),pin7
varchar(20),pin9 varchar(20),MOL varchar(20)) returns float
DETERMINISTIC
begin
declare output float;
>mysql> create index AA on precalc (IDR(P1,P4,P6,P7,P9,'HLA-DRB13'));
>
>But i Get the following error:
>
>ERROR 1064 (42000): You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual
>that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use
>near ''P1','P4','P6','P7','P9','HLA-DRB1
Hi
I've created a function that return a float value the code for it is :
create function IDR(pin1 varchar(20),pin4 varchar(20),pin6 varchar(20),pin7
varchar(20),pin9 varchar(20),MOL varchar(20)) returns float
DETERMINISTIC
begin
declare output float;
On 6/7/07, Cory Robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The issue I have is that the ratio of queries on old vs.
new data is like 1:10. And searches would be MUCH
faster if I could force my queries that are looking at
current or future data to use an index that ONLY had that
information in them..
Hi Cory,
Cory Robin wrote:
Is there a way to only include certain matching conditions
in indexes?
Example if I have a row I want to index that is mysql dates
(2007-06-07) and I only want to include CURRENT and FUTURE
dates in the index and ignore any past dates. Is that
possible at all?
The
Is there a way to only include certain matching conditions
in indexes?
Example if I have a row I want to index that is mysql dates
(2007-06-07) and I only want to include CURRENT and FUTURE
dates in the index and ignore any past dates. Is that
possible at all?
The issue I have is that the ratio
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hi,
Afan Pasalic wrote:
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hi Afan,
Afan Pasalic wrote:
hi,
if I have column order_id(int(4)) null do I have to index it too.
I'm going to use it ONLY for sorting records.
It depends a lot on how much data is in the table, etc etc. An
index will
Hi,
Afan Pasalic wrote:
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hi Afan,
Afan Pasalic wrote:
hi,
if I have column order_id(int(4)) null do I have to index it too. I'm
going to use it ONLY for sorting records.
It depends a lot on how much data is in the table, etc etc. An index
will make sorting more effi
Baron Schwartz wrote:
Hi Afan,
Afan Pasalic wrote:
hi,
if I have column order_id(int(4)) null do I have to index it too. I'm
going to use it ONLY for sorting records.
It depends a lot on how much data is in the table, etc etc. An index
will make sorting more efficient in the general case
Hi Afan,
Afan Pasalic wrote:
hi,
if I have column order_id(int(4)) null do I have to index it too. I'm
going to use it ONLY for sorting records.
It depends a lot on how much data is in the table, etc etc. An index will make sorting
more efficient in the general case when you have a decent a
hi,
if I have column order_id(int(4)) null do I have to index it too. I'm
going to use it ONLY for sorting records.
thanks.
-afan
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 12:15 AM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Joins versus Grouping/Indexing: Normalization Excessive?
>
> So I'm currently designing a database for a web site and
> intra net for my
> campuses student radio. Since I'm not getting paid for this
>
I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle. You'll want to put
the data at the highest level at which it changes.
i.e. If every song on an album is always the same year, put it at the
album level, however, if it changes from song to song on a particular
album, then you want it at the
So I'm currently designing a database for a web site and intra net for my
campuses student radio. Since I'm not getting paid for this and I'm doing
this in my free time I kinda want to take my time and have the system setup
as "perfectly" as any one college student can.
I'm currently debating on
time<2008-06-08+INTERVAL 1 DAY
>> >> AND e.mid IS NULL
>> >> GROUP BY s.mid
>> >> HAVING earned>0
>> >> ORDER BY earned DESC
>> >>
>> >> --- problem ---
>> >>
>> >> `pts
gt;> calculate
>> a sum of how much they earned. Then I reorder that sum in Descending
>> order
>> so the highest earned is on top.
>>
>> This `ptsSignups` table contains 82752 rows and is 75KB big. It runs
>> extremely slow. I tried to create an index for it b
le `ptsSignups` by member id, and
>> calculate
>> a sum of how much they earned. Then I reorder that sum in Descending
>> order
>> so the highest earned is on top.
>>
>> This `ptsSignups` table contains 82752 rows and is 75KB big. It runs
>> extremely s
ate an index for it but it failed to increase
performance.
Any help is appreciated.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Help-indexing-this-query.-tf3059045.html#a8505554
Sent from the MySQL - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For l
s `ptsSignups` table contains 82752 rows and is 75KB big. It runs
extremely slow. I tried to create an index for it but it failed to increase
performance.
Any help is appreciated.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Help-indexing-this-query.-tf3059045.html#a8505554
Sent from the
In the last episode (Jan 06), Himanshu Raina said:
> I am facing a peculiar problem.When i execute a query on slave server
> it doesn't use indexes that have been created and hence read all the
> records present in that table.The same query when execute on Master
> yields proper results.The table s
Hi,
I am facing a peculiar problem.When i execute a query on slave server it
doesn't use indexes that have been created and hence read all the records
present in that table.The same query when execute on Master yields proper
results.The table structure , table types are same.What could be wrong
I'm guessing that the way MySQL handles foreign language full text
indexing is through parser plug-ins and custom stop word lists. Am I
right? And If so, these must have been already created for the common
western languages such as German, French etc. Where can I find these
plug-ins? Is
Hi Gasper,
MySql allows to package the index - to get its size smaller and to gain
performance.
Some information about that can be found here:
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/05/13/to-pack-or-not-to-pack-myisam-key-compression/
Gaspar Bakos schrieb:
> Hi,
>
>
> RE:
>
>> Have you tri
Hi,
RE:
> Have you tried
> analyze table x;
This was quick:
mysql> analyze table TEST;
Table Op Msg_typeMsg_text
CAT.TEST analyze status Table is already up to date
--
mysql> show index from TEST;
+---+++
Hi, Philip,
RE:
> What is the EXPLAIN output of each?
OK, first I naively typed:
explain create table test2 select * from TEST where MMi < 9000;
but of course, this does not work.
The simple select that uses MMi_m as index (and takes up to an hour):
mysql> explain select * from TEST where MMi_m
Questions;
1. Is there a way to decrease random seeks? E.g. mysqld config
parameters, increase some buffer/cache sizes?
2. Optimize table: is there a way to rearrange data so that random
seeks are minimized?
3. If we have to live with large number of random seeks does anyone
know how the underl
Hello,
There is a table (TEST) with ~100 million records, 70 columns (mostly
integers, some doubles, and a few short fixed char()), and has a ~100Gb
size.
The table has a single (not unique) index on one integer column: MMi.
If I invoke a simple select based on MMi, then the selection is VERY sl
A simple search on google for
mysql fulltext indexing
provided many links, including:
http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/000576.html
http://epsilondelta.wordpress.com/2006/02/08/dissecting-mysql-fulltext-indexing/
(overviews of how it works)
and
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en
anyone know where i can get these, will highly appreciate, this is a feature
of mysql 5.0 and my platform is linux.
1 - 100 of 413 matches
Mail list logo
