; > -Original Message-
> > From: Rick James
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:08 PM
> > To: 'Jeremy Chase'; mysql@lists.mysql.com
> > Subject: RE: InnoDB interaction between secondary and primary keys.
> >
> > secondarykey and r
ql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: RE: InnoDB interaction between secondary and primary keys.
>
> secondarykey and redundantkey are redundant with each other -- in all
> versions of InnoDB.
>
> One "expert" said that redundant key would have two copies of `1`,`2`.
> I think h
.com
> Subject: InnoDB interaction between secondary and primary keys.
>
> Hello,
>
> I've been working with a secondary index and would like some
> clarification about how the primary columns are included. So, in the
> following example, is the secondaryKey effective
This isn't true for innodb.
I think the only requirement is that you need to have a unique index
on the auto increment column.
We created a composite primary key + auto_increment to take advantage
of clustering by primary key while satisfying unique constraint for
the primary key. It worked out wel
y projects I am working on, where I've done this, but done it in
code, rather than in mysql.
Steven Staples
> -Original Message-
> From: Dušan Pavlica [mailto:pavl...@unidataz.cz]
> Sent: June 29, 2010 11:26 AM
> To: Victor Subervi
> Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
>
You were talking about multiple fields in the primary key, not multiple
primary keys.
On 06/29/2010 03:51 PM, Johan De Meersman wrote:
Correct, but you still can't have more than one primary key. Kind of
defeats the idea of it being primary, really.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:36 PM,
to_increment primary key, you cant have
any other field in its primary key.
Makes sense. Actually, I was just copying what someone else gave me and
adding the auto_increment, then I got to wondering, what is the purpose of
having two primary keys?
TIA,
V
--
MySQL General Mailing List
F
2010/6/29 João Cândido de Souza Neto
> I think the best, or may be the right way is to use picture_id as primary
> key and a unique index to product_sku.
>
Yes, sounds good. So the purpose, then, is to speed lookups on fields
commonly accessed. I'd forgotten that.
Thanks,
V
I think the best, or may be the right way is to use picture_id as primary
key and a unique index to product_sku.
--
João Cândido de Souza Neto
"Victor Subervi" escreveu na mensagem
news:aanlktikzksmbx5hue0x_q3hx_68gicndghpkjdrna...@mail.gmail.com...
> Hi;
> I have the following:
>
> create
ed to auto_increment and declare primary key on two
fields. How do?
TIA,
Victor
Use the other syntax for defining keys:
create table pics (
picture_id int auto_increment,
product_sku int not null,
picture_num int not null,
picture_desc varchar(100),
picture_data longblob,
PRIMAR
If you use innodb, primary key lookups are far faster than secondary
indexes.
Peter
On 06/29/2010 03:34 PM, João Cândido de Souza Neto wrote:
I think the real question is: What´s the purpose of any other field in my
primary key if the first one is an auto_increment and will never repeat?
t is the purpose of
having two primary keys?
TIA,
V
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
at is the purpose of
having two primary keys?
TIA,
V
As far as I know, if you have an auto_increment primary key, you cant have
any other field in its primary key.
João Cândido.
"Victor Subervi" escreveu na mensagem
news:aanlktikzksmbx5hue0x_q3hx_68gicndghpkjdrna...@mail.gmail.com...
> Hi;
> I have the following:
>
> create table pics (
> p
Hi;
I have the following:
create table pics (
picture_id int auto_increment primary key,
product_sku int not null primary key,
picture_num int not null,
picture_desc varchar(100),
picture_data longblob
);
which doesn't work I need to auto_increment and declare primary key on two
fi
new index would work.
-Original Message-
From: Sergey Petrunya [mailto:pser...@askmonty.org]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 5:58 PM
To: Manish Ranjan
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: different type column and keys for EXPLAIN
Manish,
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 05:33:43PM +0530, Man
checking for lastname 'clark'.
> Rest everything is same with these two queries. However, the explain output
> shows "ref" for the first query and uses only one key for the first query
> whereas second query uses "index_merge" and both keys.
>
> ...
>
Behalf Of Johan De
> Meersman
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 8:33 PM
> To: Manish Ranjan
> Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: different type column and keys for EXPLAIN
>
>
>
> I don't think there's an actual problem as such, the optimiser is just
> maki
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: different type column and keys for EXPLAIN
Heh. Try running "analyze table", so the index stats are correct. If that
doesn't help, you may have stumbled upon an optimizer glitch, or maybe
there's something happening that I'm not se
9 8:33 PM
To: Manish Ranjan
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: different type column and keys for EXPLAIN
I don't think there's an actual problem as such, the optimiser is just
making a decision to merge the lastname and firstname indices for the second
query. At a guess, I'd say
uot; for the first query and uses only one key for the first query
> whereas second query uses "index_merge" and both keys.
>
>
>
> mysql> explain select count(*) from tblList where fldFIRSTNAME='michael'
> and
> fldLASTNAME='clarke';
>
>
&g
in output
shows "ref" for the first query and uses only one key for the first query
whereas second query uses "index_merge" and both keys.
mysql> explain select count(*) from tblList where fld
d then doing the EXPLAIN again sometimes changes the plan. I assume this is
because the cardinalities are recalculated.
I expect the CatalogNumber unique keys to always be used for this query. Even
if I do:
SELECT [...]
FROM newdarwincoredata n FORCE INDEX (CatalogNumber)
INNER JOIN darwincore
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Ye Yuan wrote:
> Hi Victor,
>
> It looks to me the foreign key syntax is wrong. Can you create the
> Relationship table on your database by using below ddl?
>
> create table if not exists Relationship
> (ID integer auto_increment primary key,
> Parent integer not
Hi;
I don't claim to be an expert in MySQL. The following code was largely
supplied to me by someone who was. I don't really understand foreign keys.
He wrote this off the top of his head, and it's throwing an error. Here's
the python code:
def catTree():
user, pass
ATUS \G
>
> And look for the "LATEST FOREIGN KEY ERROR" section. It'll explain the
> reason for the (errno: 150) message.
>
> Regards,
> Gavin Towey
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wabiko.takuma [mailto:wab...@sysrdc.ns-sol.co.jp]
> Sent: Fr
35 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: foreign keys: Cannot create InnoDB table
Hi, All,
I can't create InnoDB table with foreign key constraints using more than 3
colmuns.
When I create table `test_fk`.`tbl1`, it gives me:
Can't create table 'test_fk.tbl1' (errno: 1
Hi,
I can't create InnoDB table with foreign key constraints using more than 3
colmuns.
When I create table `test_fk`.`tbl1`, it gives me:
Can't create table 'test_fk.tbl1' (errno: 150)
why? CREATE TABLE syntax looks perfectly right to me.
Any suggestions are welcome.
Thank you,
wabi
--
Hi, All,
I can't create InnoDB table with foreign key constraints using more than 3
colmuns.
When I create table `test_fk`.`tbl1`, it gives me:
Can't create table 'test_fk.tbl1' (errno: 150)
why? CREATE TABLE syntax looks perfectly right to me.
Any suggestions are welcome.
Thank you,
wabi
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Jim Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indexes speed up joins. Foreign keys should be indexes themselves, so they
> can also speed up joins. If the FK is not an index, it won't help. So,
> index your FKs
If you add a FOREIGN KEY constraint
h!/
Ben A. Hilleli
*Programmer / Analyst*
*From:* Arthur Fuller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* October 8, 2008 2:55 PM
*To:* Ben A.H.
*Cc:* mysql@lists.mysql.com
*Subject:* Re: Foreign Keys
So you are talking about parent-child relationships in a single table,
or in the
mentioned, thank-you so much!
Ben A. Hilleli
Programmer / Analyst
_
From: Arthur Fuller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 8, 2008 2:55 PM
To: Ben A.H.
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Foreign Keys
So you are talking about parent-child relationships in a single ta
;
> USER:
>
> emailID
>
> userName
>
> |1
>
> |many
>
> FRIEND:
>
> emailID
>
> |many
>
> |1
>
> USER:
>
> emailID
>
> username
>
>
>
> (i.e. it's two records in the same USER table)
(i.e. it's two records in the same USER table)
How are relationships between records in the same table usually dealt with
in terms of design? Implementation?
ThanX,
Ben
""Jim Lyons"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Indexes
Indexes speed up joins. Foreign keys should be indexes themselves, so they
can also speed up joins. If the FK is not an index, it won't help. So,
index your FKs
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Ben A.H. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does using foreign keys simply enforce referen
Does using foreign keys simply enforce referential integrity OR can it also
speed up JOIN queries?
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi joerg,
that was a excellent explanation.
Regards,
Pradeep Chandru.
Joerg Bruehe wrote:
Hi !
Parikh, Dilip Kumar schrieb:
Hi ,
So you are trying to say that 1) when the Table has Low Cardinality, Mysql wont
use Index? Is this the logic behind your words?
Extreme example:
If
Hi !
Parikh, Dilip Kumar schrieb:
>
> Hi ,
>
> So you are trying to say that 1) when the Table has Low Cardinality, Mysql
> wont use Index? Is this the logic behind your words?
Extreme example:
If you are manually looking up one entry from a list of five (say, in a
cookbook), would you go th
, 2008 11:36 AM
To: Johan Thorvaldsson
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com <mailto:mysql@lists.mysql.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Why dont my query use the index keys?
Hi Johan,
the query is going for a temporary table creation "Using temporary;
Using filesort"
In case your s
t: Re: Fwd: Why dont my query use the index keys?
Hi Dilip,
MySQL algorithm decides based on cardinality. Cardinality means the value of
unique entries in the table. Hence when MySQL finds that there are very less
unique values, mysql does not use that index. If the table is optimized then
value
lso looks like ok seems let me check, Please try
>>> to send the output of global status.
>>>
>>>Show global status;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks & Regards,
>>>Dilipkumar
>>>
>>>-Original Me
PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Thursday, September 18, 2008 12:23 PM
*To:* Parikh, Dilip Kumar
*Cc:* Johan Thorvaldsson; mysql@lists.mysql.com
*Subject:* Re: Fwd: Why dont my query use the index keys?
Hi Dilip,
I dont think forcing MySQL to use Index can improve your
performance. MySQL
gards,
Dilipkumar
-Original Message-
From: chandru [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:36 AM
To: Johan Thorvaldsson
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com <mailto:mysql@lists.mysql.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Why dont my query use the index keys?
H
, Please try to send
> the output of global status.
>
> Show global status;
>
>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Dilipkumar
>
> -Original Message-
> From: chandru [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:3
, Please try to send
> the output of global status.
>
> Show global status;
>
>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Dilipkumar
>
> -Original Message-
> From: chandru [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:3
m: chandru [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 12:23 PM
To: Parikh, Dilip Kumar
Cc: Johan Thorvaldsson; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: Why dont my query use the index keys?
Hi Dilip,
I dont think for
global status;
Thanks & Regards,
Dilipkumar
-Original Message-
From: chandru [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:36 AM
To: Johan Thorvaldsson
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: Why dont my query use the index keys?
Hi Johan,
the query is going
aldsson
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: RE: Fwd: Why dont my query use the index keys?
Hi johan,
U can use and try to write a query to use index in it (like use index(index
name) before where condition.
And other variables also looks like ok seems let me check, Please try to send
the output of
inal Message-
From: chandru [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:36 AM
To: Johan Thorvaldsson
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: Why dont my query use the index keys?
Hi Johan,
the query is going for a temporary table creation "Using temporary; Using
Hi johan,
you have allocated 4M for your sort buffer size is ok. So i feel that
the query is loading more than 4MB of data so it is creating a temporary
file to do a sorting. please try to put some logic into the query that
you use to load the appropriate data. I find that the tag_id has a
car
mysql> show global variables like 'sort%';
+--+-+
| Variable_name| Value |
+--+-+
| sort_buffer_size | 4194296 |
+--+-+
1 row in set (0.01 sec)
18 sep 2008 kl. 08.05 skrev chandru:
Hi Johan,
the query is going for a t
D]>
Datum: ti 16 sep 2008 13.19.43 GMT+02:00
Till: "Johan Thorvaldsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kopia: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Ämne: Re: Why dont my query use the index keys?
Hi Johan,
Its doing a range based search, so its using index.
regards
anandkl
On 9/16/08, Johan Thorvaldss
OTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Steffan, all !
>>
>>
>> Steffan A. Cline wrote:
>>
>>> [[...]]
>>>
>>> I am hoping that by using FK based relationships I can just do one
>>> massive
>>> insert into the parent table and include all related col
gt; I am hoping that by using FK based relationships I can just do one massive
>> insert into the parent table and include all related columns and somehow
>> magically all field and relational keys fall into place.
>>
>
> AFAIK, this isn't possible.
>
> Foreign
Hi Steffan, all !
Steffan A. Cline wrote:
[[...]]
I am hoping that by using FK based relationships I can just do one massive
insert into the parent table and include all related columns and somehow
magically all field and relational keys fall into place.
AFAIK, this isn't pos
I am hoping for a little clarification/education here. My understanding of
how foreign keys work is very minimal.
In using MySQL for the last several years as a backend to web apps I have
always managed relationships amongst the tables with auto increment primary
keys myself.
I have a new
>
>> try csplit to break the files into small chunks
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Ananda Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> How do i split file during ENABLE KEYS
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/13/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati
t;> How do i split file during ENABLE KEYS
>>
>>
>> On 6/13/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> increase bulk_insert_buffer_size and if possible split the bigger file
>>> into small chunks. It will help you.
>>
try csplit to break the files into small chunks
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Ananda Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do i split file during ENABLE KEYS
>
>
> On 6/13/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> increase bulk_inse
How do i split file during ENABLE KEYS
On 6/13/08, Krishna Chandra Prajapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> increase bulk_insert_buffer_size and if possible split the bigger file into
> small chunks. It will help you.
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Ananda Kumar <
the method we are following.
>
> 1. create empty table with all the indexes.
> 2. disable keys
> 3. Load data using LOAD DATA INFILE, close to 99 Million records which
> takes
> around 3 hrs
> 4 . Enable keys
>
> Table size is around 19.5 gb
>
> There is one prima
yes, this is the default folder its configured.
On 6/12/08, Boyd, Todd M. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: Ananda Kumar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:27 AM
> To: Boyd, Todd M.
> Cc: mysql
> Subject: Re: enable and disable keys
>
>
From: Ananda Kumar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:27 AM
To: Boyd, Todd M.
Cc: mysql
Subject: Re: enable and disable keys
/tmp has 16GB free space
On 6/12/08, Boyd, Todd M. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Ananda Kumar [m
/tmp has 16GB free space
On 6/12/08, Boyd, Todd M. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ananda Kumar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:41 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: mysql
> > Su
> -Original Message-
> From: Ananda Kumar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:41 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: mysql
> Subject: Re: enable and disable keys
>
> We have 200GB of free space on the file system where our database is
> loc
create empty table with all the indexes.
2. disable keys
3. Load data using LOAD DATA INFILE, close to 99 Million records which
takes
around 3 hrs
4 . Enable keys
Table size is around 19.5 gb
There is one primary key, 2 non unique indexes and one FULLTEXT INDEX.
Enable kyes goes fine for couple
ethod we are following.
>>
>> 1. create empty table with all the indexes.
>> 2. disable keys
>> 3. Load data using LOAD DATA INFILE, close to 99 Million records which
>> takes
>> around 3 hrs
>> 4 . Enable keys
>>
>> Table size is around 19.5 gb
&
Ananda Kumar wrote:
Hi All,
We are doing load data into a table using LOAD DATA INFILE process. Below is
the method we are following.
1. create empty table with all the indexes.
2. disable keys
3. Load data using LOAD DATA INFILE, close to 99 Million records which takes
around 3 hrs
4 . Enable
Hi All,
We are doing load data into a table using LOAD DATA INFILE process. Below is
the method we are following.
1. create empty table with all the indexes.
2. disable keys
3. Load data using LOAD DATA INFILE, close to 99 Million records which takes
around 3 hrs
4 . Enable keys
Table size is
On 04.11.2007 21:10 CE(S)T, Martijn Tonies wrote:
>> Now I have added this foreign key constraint:
>>
>> ALTER TABLE "user" ADD FOREIGN KEY ("AdditionalKeylist") REFERENCES
>> "keylist" ("KeylistId") ON DELETE SET NULL;
>
> This cannot work. The column in KEYLIST to which you are
> pointing should
Hi Yves,
> I have a problem with my foreign keys. I have the following two tables:
>
> CREATE TABLE "keylist" (
> "KeylistId" INTEGER NOT NULL,
> "UserId" INTEGER NOT NULL,
> PRIMARY KEY (KeylistId, UserId));
>
> CREATE TABL
On 03.11.2007 22:52 CE(S)T, Yves Goergen wrote:
> Is my design bad?
I should explain why I do it this way at all. There's some other tables
in my system that need to keep a list of "keys" (i.e. user IDs) for
several actions. A message (one of the tables) has one keylist for re
Hi,
I have a problem with my foreign keys. I have the following two tables:
CREATE TABLE "keylist" (
"KeylistId" INTEGER NOT NULL,
"UserId" INTEGER NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (KeylistId, UserId));
CREATE TABLE "user" (
"UserId" IN
Rob Wultsch wrote:
On 10/26/07, Baron Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aaron Fischer wrote:
Thanks Peter and Baron, these both worked well.
The "left join on" took .1919 seconds and the "left outer join as" took
.1780 seconds.
They are synonymous in MySQL. The only difference is 6 extra c
Aaron
>The "left join on" took .1919 seconds and the "left outer join as"
took .1780 seconds.
Caching :)
PB
-
Aaron Fischer wrote:
Thanks Peter and Baron, these both worked well.
The "left join on" took .1919 seconds and the "left outer join as"
took .1780 seconds.
=)
On Oct 26,
On 10/26/07, Baron Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Aaron Fischer wrote:
> > Thanks Peter and Baron, these both worked well.
> >
> > The "left join on" took .1919 seconds and the "left outer join as" took
> > .1780 seconds.
>
> They are synonymous in MySQL. The only difference is 6 extra ch
Aaron Fischer wrote:
Thanks Peter and Baron, these both worked well.
The "left join on" took .1919 seconds and the "left outer join as" took
.1780 seconds.
They are synonymous in MySQL. The only difference is 6 extra characters
in the query text. The difference was probably due to caches.
Aaron Fischer wrote:
Greetings!
I have a problem that it seems would best be solved using subqueries.
However, I am working on a server that is running MySQL 3.23.58, so
subqueries are not available to me.
What I am trying to do:
I have two tables, each containing approximately 37,000 rec
Thanks Peter and Baron, these both worked well.
The "left join on" took .1919 seconds and the "left outer join as"
took .1780 seconds.
=)
On Oct 26, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Peter Brawley wrote:
Aaron
An exclusion join:
SELECT a.col
FROM a
LEFT JOIN b ON a.col=b.col
WHERE b.col IS NULL;
PB
Aaron
An exclusion join:
SELECT a.col
FROM a
LEFT JOIN b ON a.col=b.col
WHERE b.col IS NULL;
PB
Aaron Fischer wrote:
Greetings!
I have a problem that it seems would best be solved using subqueries.
However, I am working on a server that is running MySQL 3.23.58, so
subqueries are not avai
Aaron Fischer wrote:
Greetings!
I have a problem that it seems would best be solved using subqueries.
However, I am working on a server that is running MySQL 3.23.58, so
subqueries are not available to me.
What I am trying to do:
I have two tables, each containing approximately 37,000 recor
Greetings!
I have a problem that it seems would best be solved using
subqueries. However, I am working on a server that is running MySQL
3.23.58, so subqueries are not available to me.
What I am trying to do:
I have two tables, each containing approximately 37,000 records. I
want to com
lient), when I'm in a
SSH (Secure Shell) Session, in a SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10,
configured to use Unicode (UTF-8 encoding).
The Portuguese accented characters appeared well, in the same SSH
session, for other shell (bash) commands and in Vim editing sessions
(using the same Portuguese keyb
Session, in a Linux Server
configured to use Unicode (UTF-8 encoding).
I'm using "dead keys" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_key - to
enter the accented characters. That is, if I press the ã (tilde sign)
key on my keyboard and then press "a" (lowercase a) then I get &q
t; sorry ,my english is poor.
>
> There is a observable event.
> My table's engine is myisam.
> Rows above 100 in my table.
> I did "alter table ..disable keys" before loading data.
> I did "alter table ..enable keys" after loading data.
> Th
From: wangxu Sent: Thu 12/04/2007 08:38
> - Original Message -
> From: "Martijn Tonies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:17 PM
> Subject: Re: when rebuilding keys?
&
- Original Message -
From: "Martijn Tonies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: when rebuilding keys?
>
>
>> yes.
>
>> >> before load data.
>&
> yes.
> >> before load data.
> >
> > You want to rebuild the indices after loading data,
> > correct?
Then what exactly is the question?
Please write your answer BELOW, not above.
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, NexusDB, Oracle &
MS SQL Server
Upscen
yes.
- Original Message -
From: "Martijn Tonies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: when rebuilding keys?
>
>
>
>> before load data.
>
> You want to rebuild the indices after l
rum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com
> >> My table is myisam.
> >>
> >> I disable key using "alter table ... disable keys" before load data in
the
> > table.
> >>
> >> The manual tell me MySQL to stop updating non-unique indexes
before load data.
- Original Message -
From: "Martijn Tonies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: when rebuilding keys?
>
>
>
>> My table is myisam.
>>
>> I disable key
> My table is myisam.
>
> I disable key using "alter table ... disable keys" before load data in the
table.
>
> The manual tell me MySQL to stop updating non-unique indexes for a MyISAM
table.
>
> When mysql server updating non-unique index after loading
At 03:27 PM 3/16/2007, you wrote:
How to find all the values of column a in table A that are not values of
column b in table B?
Thanks
YL,
You need to do a Left Join and it will use NULL's for rows in the
second table if the row is missing.
select A.* from TableA TA left join TableB TB
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 17:51, Paul McCullagh wrote:
> Hi Tim,
Hello Paul
> Foreign key definitions are parsed but ignored by MyISAM tables.
Understood. Thanks
> Try InnoDB or PBXT (http://www.primebase.com/xt) :)
for the time being, I'm going to stick with MyISAM. I've
got a possible solu
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 17:43, Rolando Edwards wrote:
> SHOW INDEXES FROM `providers`;
>
> By the way, what version of MySQL are you using ???
4.0.20
--
Tim Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Palmer, Alaska, USA
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To u
Hi Tim,
Foreign key definitions are parsed but ignored by MyISAM tables.
Try InnoDB or PBXT (http://www.primebase.com/xt) :)
On Feb 21, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Tim Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 17:01, Rolando Edwards wrote:
SHOW CREATE TABLE providers\G
Hi Rolando:
That doesn't do
SHOW INDEXES FROM `providers`;
By the way, what version of MySQL are you using ???
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:35:46 AM (GMT-0500) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: Retrieving
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 17:01, Rolando Edwards wrote:
> SHOW CREATE TABLE providers\G
Hi Rolando:
That doesn't do it on my machine (linux, ver 4.0.2)
Here's what I see
mysql> SHOW CREATE TABLE providers\G
*** 1. row ***
Table: providers
SHOW CREATE TABLE providers\G
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "MySQL General Mailing List"
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:59:35 AM (GMT-0500) Auto-Detected
Subject: Retrieving foreign keys and references
Hi:
Below is the
Hi:
Below is the following relevant create table syntax
CREATE Table providers(
[snipped]
FOREIGN KEY (status) REFERENCES provider_status(ID,title),
UNIQUE KEY ID (ID)
) TYPE=MyISAM;
and below is the relevant output from a describe query:
mysql> show columns from providers;
+---
1 - 100 of 888 matches
Mail list logo
