Martijn,
List: mysql
Subject:Re: Innodb foreign keys names
From: "Martijn Tonies"
Date: 2004-10-19 9:53:28
Message-ID: <01ad01c4b5c1$7c1e69a0$0a02a8c0 () martijn>
[Download message RAW]
>Heikki,
>
>> you have to use a fairly recent 4.0 or 4.1
ySQL
InnoDB Hot Backup - a hot backup tool for InnoDB which also backs up MyISAM
tables
http://www.innodb.com/order.php
Order MySQL support from http://www.mysql.com/support/index.html
...
From: David Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: InnoDB deadlock problem
View: Complete Threa
Heikki,
> you have to use a fairly recent 4.0 or 4.1 version of MySQL.
Does a newer version allow you to change/set the names yourself?
With regards,
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL
Server.
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
>
Richard,
you have to use a fairly recent 4.0 or 4.1 version of MySQL.
Best regards,
Heikki Tuuri
Innobase Oy
Foreign keys, transactions, and row level locking for MySQL
InnoDB Hot Backup - a hot backup tool for InnoDB which also backs up MyISAM
tables
http://www.innodb.com/order.php
Order MySQL t
At 09:45 PM 10/15/2004, you wrote:
Can I safely store multiple customer credit card numbers in a table that
is InnoDB, if I use an Encrypt() to encrypt the number and then decrypt
the number? The site will have a shared SSL cert on it. Please give me
tips.
No. The Encrypt function is too weak. AES_
On Wednesday 13 October 2004 10:33 am, Ulrich Seppi wrote:
> Hello people,
> does anybody know if Foreign keys increase the performance of select
> querys? example.
> DB1 has only INNODB tables.
> DB2 has the same structure as DB1 with all possible foreign keys.
Huh? You might want to read what a
> does anybody know if Foreign keys increase the performance of select
querys?
> example.
> DB1 has only INNODB tables.
> DB2 has the same structure as DB1 with all possible foreign keys.
>
> is the same query faster on DB1 or DB2?
Why should it increase performance?
With regards,
Martijn Tonie
I am not certain that Foreign Keys (FKs) are even considered when
evaluating a SELECT statement. I know that the indexes that the FKs point
to in either table play a major role in determining the execution plan but
I don't think that the FKs actually participate in SELECT queries.
Now, does ha
Hi Tobias,
Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately I couldn't see from the manual why I was getting
the deadlock - transaction 2 already has a lock on the index it is waiting for. The
difference seems to be 'insert intention' - I'm not sure what different types of
exclusive lock there are and how
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, David Edwards wrote:
> I've got a deadlock problem using InnoDB tables
(...)
> Transaction 1:
> START TRANSACTION;
> DELETE FROM results WHERE id_job = 25920;
> INSERT INTO results(result,id_job) VALUES (31.461937,25920);
> COMMIT;
>
> Transaction 2:
> START TRANSACTION;
> DE
We have been using innodb tables on our systems and we use netapp to
store all the tables. It will be however wise to put transaction logs
into a different netapp or somewhere else so that even if the netapp
goes kaput (highly unlikely) totally you do not lose any data.
--
MySQL General Mailing L
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 02:22:59PM -0400, Debbie L wrote:
>
> Your right, I shouldn't say supported... Is it a wise to put
> datafiles on a disk appliance? Coming from other database
> background, it is not wise to do such a thing and will cause
> problems when the disk appliance has problems.
We
Your right, I shouldn't say supported... Is it a wise to put datafiles
on a disk appliance?
Coming from other database background, it is not wise to do such a
thing and will cause
problems when the disk appliance has problems.
As for the transaction logs, I haven't reallly thought of it, but to
m
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 01:52:36PM -0400, Debbie L wrote:
> We are looking at a disk subsystem for a high transactional
> application. And management wishes
> to use disk appliance (IPStore or NetAPP).
>
> Does anyone know if placing the mysql MYISAM and INNODB datafiles on
> IPStore or NetApp di
Thanks for the reply, much appreciated.
> this might be a Linux kernel bug. What kernel are you using?
/proc/version
Linux version 2.4.26-ow1 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3.2.2 20030222 (Red
Hat Linux 3.2.2-5)) #3 Wed Apr 28 13:39:23 NZST 2004
The problem had been happening approximately once a
cause when it happened
originally.
-Original Message-
From: Dathan Vance Pattishall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 2:49 PM
To: Tucker, Gabriel; 'Mysql General (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: Innodb Message "Lock wait timeout exceeded; Try restarting
tran
Basically the application can get this message because another process has a
lock on the rows that the delete needs to cover for a time period then your
lock_wait_timeout. Is there some cron process? Is the table index properly?
What your average query transaction?
Active your slow query log to se
Toro,
this might be a Linux kernel bug. What kernel are you using?
You have done very little processing, the log sequence number is only 400
MB.
Looks like a thread has been waiting for a disk read. The output shows that
the InnoDB 'event' it has waited for is already signaled. In Unix, an InnoD
Stuart Felenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> InnoDB free: 10240 kB
> Does this mean the actual space provided for the
> records it can hold ?
Approximately.
--
For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita
This email is sponsored by Ensita.net http://www.ensi
Hi,
This is the free space left in the InnoDB file. InnoDB will claim all the
space that it is configured for and if autoextend is turned on it will use
additional space when needed until the file limit is reached.
For example my current configuration is
innodb_data_file_path =/var/lib/mysql/in
I am sorry. I did not remove TYPE=INNODB in the middle
of the statment. You are right. I am now getting a
different error message;
ERROR 1005 at line 33: Can't creat table
'.\enrollment1\enrolls.frm' (errno: 150)
All the tables except enrolls is created. What am I
doing wrong again?
Regards.
Ma
Mulugeta Maru wrote:
--- Michael Stassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mulugeta Maru wrote:
Hi Michael,
I made some changes to the sql statments to create the
ENROLLS table as follows:
** Did you read this part? **
CREATE TABLE ENROLLS
(
courseID SMALLINT NOT NULL,
sectionID SMALLINT NOT NU
--- Michael Stassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Mulugeta Maru wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > I made some changes to the sql statments to create
> the
> > ENROLLS table as follows:
> >
> > CREATE TABLE ENROLLS
> > (
> > courseID SMALLINT NOT NULL,
> > sectionID SMALLINT NOT NULL,
> >
Mulugeta Maru wrote:
Hi Michael,
I made some changes to the sql statments to create the
ENROLLS table as follows:
CREATE TABLE ENROLLS
(
courseID SMALLINT NOT NULL,
sectionID SMALLINT NOT NULL,
studentID SMALLINT NOT NULL,
grade SMALLINT)TYPE=INNODB;
^
You made
Hi Michael,
I made some changes to the sql statments to create the
ENROLLS table as follows:
CREATE TABLE ENROLLS
(courseID SMALLINT NOT NULL,
sectionID SMALLINT NOT NULL,
studentID SMALLINT NOT NULL,
grade SMALLINT)TYPE=INNODB;
PRIMARY KEY(courseID,sectionID,studentID),
INDEX(courseID),
FOREIGN
Mulugeta Maru wrote:
I was able to create all the tables below except
ENROLLS. Can anyone please help me what is wrong in my
syntax in the section that faild to create the ENROLLS
table.
CREATE TABLE ENROLLS
(
enrollmentID INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
courseID SMALLINT NOT NULL,
sectionID SM
Mayuran Yogarajah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Each |MyISAM| table is stored on disk in three files. The files have
> names that
> begin with the table name and have an extension to indicate the file type.
> An `.frm' file stores the table definition. The data file has an `.MYD'
> (MYData) extens
Mayuran Yogarajah wrote:
From the MySQL docs:
Each |MyISAM| table is stored on disk in three files. The files have
names that
begin with the table name and have an extension to indicate the file
type.
An `.frm' file stores the table definition. The data file has an `.MYD'
(MYData) extension. The
sean c peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am in the process of upgrading one of my systems to use InnoDB tables, along
> with some other tweaks to my code. In any case, i just tried to delete around
> 7000 records from a table, where there are 9 other tables that will cascade
> delete when r
Marvin Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have just recently moved 1 of our InnoDB cache servers to a new much
> bigger machine, 4 CPU, 8GB Ram and masses amount of disk space available
> from a SAN. The OS is Redhat AS 3 with kernel 2.4. MySQL is the only
> application on this machine and i
David Griffiths writes:
>Oracle cannot shrink datafiles (same idea as InnoDB datafiles) when data
>is deleted either.
Actually, Oracle has been able to resize data files since 7.2. It
is usually done with an 'alter tablespace ... coalesce' followed by an
'alter tablespace datafile ... resiz
"Carlos Proal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How stable is this feature? , i have been using it for a few time and works
> fine, but im thinking to move my current productive enviroment this way and
> i dont know if its a good choice.
>
> Any advise is appreciated.
It is stable. :)
--
Fo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Mathis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> my understanding is that the datafiles are created when the server
> initializes, and this this is the designed and expected behavior. Most
> other database products use a similar model. Your scenario cannot
> happen. You sp
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: InnoDB TableSpace Question
Oracle cannot shrink datafiles (same idea as InnoDB datafiles) when data
is deleted either.
David
Marc Slemko wrote:
>On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:42:03 -0400 , David Seltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks Marc,
Actually, Oracle can shrink or grow datafiles:
ALTER DATABASE DATAFILE '/usr01/oracle/sid/data001' resize 200M;
On Aug 3, 2004, at 15:59, David Griffiths wrote:
Oracle cannot shrink datafiles (same idea as InnoDB datafiles) when
data is deleted either.
David
Marc Slemko wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004
Oracle cannot shrink datafiles (same idea as InnoDB datafiles) when data
is deleted either.
David
Marc Slemko wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:42:03 -0400 , David Seltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks Marc,
Is there really no way to reclaim unused space in an InnoDB table space? If
not, why is
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 01:08:58PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I agree with David. If there is no present way to recover unused
> InnoDB tablespace, then we (as a community) seriously need to create
> a tool to do just that. How have we gone so long without it?
Because it's just not a pro
gt;
>>
>>>Thanks Marc,
>>>
>>>Is there really no way to reclaim unused space in an InnoDB table
>>> space?
>>
>> If
>>
>>>not, why is this not considered a tremendous limitation?
>>>
>>>-Dave Seltzer
>>>
>
PM
To: David Seltzer
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: InnoDB TableSpace Question
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:07:25 -0400 , David Seltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi all,
I've been searching the archives & mysql documentation for a while and
I
can't seem to find an answer to my qu
:09 PM
To: David Seltzer
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: InnoDB TableSpace Question
I agree with David. If there is no present way to recover unused InnoDB
tablespace, then we (as a community) seriously need to create a tool to do
just that. How have we gone so long without it? I always
From: Marc Slemko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 12:31 PM
> To: David Seltzer
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: InnoDB TableSpace Question
>
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:07:25 -0400 , David Seltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
>
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:42:03 -0400 , David Seltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Marc,
>
> Is there really no way to reclaim unused space in an InnoDB table space? If
> not, why is this not considered a tremendous limitation?
Some do consider it a tremendous limitation. It all depends on ho
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: InnoDB TableSpace Question
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:07:25 -0400 , David Seltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been searching the archives & mysql documentation for a while and I
> can't seem to find an answer to my questio
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:07:25 -0400 , David Seltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been searching the archives & mysql documentation for a while and I
> can't seem to find an answer to my question -
>
> Is there a way to force InnoDB to shrink its filesize? I just dropped a 7GB
> tab
At 12:55 PM 8/1/2004, Keith Thompson wrote:
Hey Mike,
Thanks again for your suggestions.
I understand (and agree) with your comments about a clean shutdown.
I'm always careful to do that. In this case, the mysql server has
only been shutdown a couple times and it was a clean shutdown in
each case.
Hey Mike,
Thanks again for your suggestions.
I understand (and agree) with your comments about a clean shutdown.
I'm always careful to do that. In this case, the mysql server has
only been shutdown a couple times and it was a clean shutdown in
each case.
You suggest running table checks daily.
At 01:21 AM 8/1/2004, Keith Thompson wrote:
Thanks Mike,
I've always ignored CHECK TABLE because I always thought it was
just for MyISAM.
I ran CHECK TABLE. It told me that my table was corrupt. I then
dumped the table with mysqldump and recreated it. After that
CHECK TABLE said it was OK (and i
Hi Sergei,
I did come from 4.0.17 to 4.1.3 with a complete dump/reload.
Then, all changes after that forward came via replication.
I didn't read anything about corruption problems as a replication
slave.
-keith
>Hi!
>On Aug 01, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Thanks Mike,
>>
>> I've always ignored CH
Hi!
On Aug 01, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Thanks Mike,
>
> I've always ignored CHECK TABLE because I always thought it was
> just for MyISAM.
>
> Then, I decided to run CHECK TABLE on all my tables (which for the
> ones with 125 million rows will probably be running for a while).
> The problem now
Thanks Mike,
I've always ignored CHECK TABLE because I always thought it was
just for MyISAM.
I ran CHECK TABLE. It told me that my table was corrupt. I then
dumped the table with mysqldump and recreated it. After that
CHECK TABLE said it was OK (and in comparing values with the master
server
At 07:07 PM 7/31/2004, you wrote:
Hi Marc,
Thanks for you response. In answer to your questions, there are no
embedded newlines and I did look at index issues. I did not try
rebuilding the index, which would be easy to do in this case since
the tables are small (unlike a couple of my other tables
Hi Marc,
Thanks for you response. In answer to your questions, there are no
embedded newlines and I did look at index issues. I did not try
rebuilding the index, which would be easy to do in this case since
the tables are small (unlike a couple of my other tables that have
125+ million rows and
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:50:38 -0500, Keith Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just discovered that two of my tables (out of about 300)
> show a very unusual behavior. This is that "select count(*) ..."
> and selecting all the rows and counting them do not produce
> the same number.
>
> This
Hi!
- Original Message -
From: ""Sp.Raja"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: Innodb assertion failure after binary backup-restore
> Thanks for your replies.
>
> Now I have three w
UNLOCK TABLES
Do you think #3 will work?
Regards,
Sp.Raja
> Original Message
> From: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, Jul-27-2004 6:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Innodb assertion failure after binary backup-restore
>
Sp.Raja
> Original Message
> From: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, Jul-27-2004 6:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Innodb assertion failure after binary backup-restore
>
> Hi!
>
> sync will not help.
>
&
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Sp.Raja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
> I was able to solve this by calling sync command, as my previous mail say.
> Do you mean to say this will not work regardless of the whether we
> sync or not??
If it happens to work, then only by incident. I wouldn't r
are flushed ??
Thanks for your reply.
Thanks,
Sp.Raja
> Original Message
> From: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, Jul-27-2004 1:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Innodb assertion failure after binary backup-restore
&g
age
> From: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, Jul-27-2004 1:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Innodb assertion failure after binary backup-restore
>
> Hi!
>
> That method will not work. InnoDB must be quiet long enoug
Hi!
That method will not work. InnoDB must be quiet long enough so that it has
time to flush all the contents of the buffer pool to the data files.
Best regards,
Heikki Tuuri
Innobase Oy
Foreign keys, transactions, and row level locking for MySQL
InnoDB Hot Backup - a hot backup tool for InnoDB
Hi List,
I figured out the fix for it. I need to do a "sync" and wait for the sync to get over
and take a backup.
Thanks,
Sp.Raja
> Original Message
> From: "Sp.Raja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, Jul
In some cases mysql crashes while restore is trying to destroy persistent databases
and mysql.err says
000121 21:02:23 InnoDB: Database was not shut down normally.
InnoDB: Starting recovery from log files...
InnoDB: Starting log scan based on checkpoint at
InnoDB: log sequence number 0 867418
In
Kieran,
The InnoDB tablespace may span multiple files and may even be configured to
use raw devices, thus, the filesystem really doesn't limit the maximum
InnoDB tablespace size. The maximum InnoDB tablespace size is 64TB.
Eg. of multiple files/devices
innodb_data_file_path=ibdata1:4G;ibdata2:50
Kieran Kelleher wrote:
>Does anyone out there have a suggested innodb parameters or even a
>working set of params that I could start with.
The InnoDB manual gives good suggestion. Some minor comments (none
particularly OS X specific, but InnoDB works fine on it)
innodb_buffer_pool_size is very
I highly recommend simply using ext3 for your Linux
setup. The 1 or 2 percent performance benefit that
you may get from raw partitions is way outweighed by
complexness of backups of the raw data.
either way:
First I would suggest you read the Linux RAID howto:
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-
--- Egor Egorov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sagara Wijetunga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I can see his MyISAM *.frm, *.MYD and *.MYI are
> kept
> > under his database directory.
> >
> > But I can see only table.frm are in his database
> > directory for InnoDB tables. It looks like InnoDB
>
Sagara Wijetunga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can see his MyISAM *.frm, *.MYD and *.MYI are kept
> under his database directory.
>
> But I can see only table.frm are in his database
> directory for InnoDB tables. It looks like InnoDB
> table data belongs to his database are not kept under
> his
InnoDB data is kept in the ib* files. Did you explicitly create a directory
for your innoDB files?
-Original Message-
From: Sagara Wijetunga
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 7/6/04 8:16 AM
Subject: InnoDB table data
Hi all
We allocate a limited amount of disk space for user's
home directory a
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Not sure you want that, the file is 44MB uncompressed, and only talks
about the errors reading communication packets. Makes for some really
boring reading ;) The InnoDB error I managed to figure out - I once
upped max_connections without doing the math, and the machine was
ex
Mitch,
- Alkuperäinen viesti -
Lähettäjä: "Mitch Pirtle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: "Heikki Tuuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kopio: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lähetetty: Monday, July 05, 2004 4:26 PM
Aihe: Re: InnoDB and long semaphore waits
> Heik
Heikki Tuuri wrote:
Mitch,
please send the FULL .err log to me.
Hey Heikki,
Not sure you want that, the file is 44MB uncompressed, and only talks
about the errors reading communication packets. Makes for some really
boring reading ;) The InnoDB error I managed to figure out - I once
upped
Mitch,
please send the FULL .err log to me.
Best regards,
Heikki
- Original Message -
From: "Mitch Pirtle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 4:41 PM
Subject: InnoDB and long semaphore waits
> Hi listers,
>
> I just got here, so plea
Keep in my mind that if something does go `wrong` you could possibly have to
wait hours for all of your transactions to roll back.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Lee
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
Sent: 6/28/04 9:35 PM
Subject: RE: INNODB transaction log size
Victor,
Thanks for
Victor,
Thanks for your reply.
Actually, i cannot find such an option and want to see if i have missed something.
Referring to Innodb transaction log, I do some more searching and would like to
confirm what i found from the web (this information is not available in MySQL
documentation)
.
I do not believe this is currently an option in the `load data infile`
syntax. One option would be to read the file programmatically and issue the
commits after `x` number of inserts.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Lee
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 6/28/04 1:21 AM
Subject: INNODB transacti
i have been reading..
and i have found 3 ways to have a copy of mysql master datas for initilize the
mysql slave
( always having in mind innodb compatibility )
1)
FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK
see the 'SHOW MASTER STATUS' sentence
shutdown master database
copy all data, log and .frm files
RESTAR
I have just documented how I set it up a new slave last week to
replicate against an existing master and it was really easier than I
expected. It works like a charm so far. Here is the instructions
http://homepage.mac.com/kelleherk/iblog/C711669388/E351220100/index.html
I hope this helps :
that is just what we want to do..
but it isnt "The simplest thing to do" as you say
:P
i am studying this:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Replication_HOWTO.html
thx another time
d2clon
On Thursday 24 June 2004 15:22, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
> The simplest thing to do is set up a replication
The simplest thing to do is set up a replication slave and run a script
every night that shuts down the MySQL slave, performs the backup, and
then restarts MySQL. We have a dedicated XServe running MySQL and we
use another XServe whose primary function is filesharing to also act as
a replicatio
thx thx :D
thats work right.
the only problem is that mysqldump dont write the 'set FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS'
sentences until version 4.1.1:
"To make it easier to reload dump files for tables that have foreign key
relationships, mysqldump automatically includes a statement in the dump
output to se
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i have read multiple websites and posts.. and this mail list archive
> but i have not found the answer to the question:
>
> how is it possible to do a backup of a innodb table?
>
>
>
> i have read: "try to use mysqldump.." but this does not w
Carlos Sunden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "InnoDB is included in binary distributions by default as of MySQL 4.0."
>
> Hello
>
> Is InnoDb always used when installing MySQL whether RPM or binary is used?
Yes.
If you don't need InnoDB, start MySQL server with --skip-innodb option.
>
> I am
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 15 June 2004 10:43 am, Carlos Sunden wrote:
> I am not completely sure what this is although I've read about it.
www.innodb.com.. Gives you all the info you can handle.
Jeff
- --
Not quite human any longer.
-BEGIN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Anybody know how do I know if innoDB is enabled?
SHOW VARIABLES LIKE "have_innodb";
If InnoDB is enabled, you will see 'YES' in the output.
>
> I have MySQL 3.23 installed. The MySQL document says "the simplest way to
> install MySQL-Max is to replace the executabl
Boyd,
- Original Message -
From: ""Boyd E. Hemphill"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 5:02 AM
Subject: innodb FK column rename
> All:
>
> What are the consequences of renaming a column in a child table that is
> the FK to the parent?
"Paul West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here are some easy questions I hope you can answer.
> I have been creating innoDB tables in mysql, creating contraints and foreign keys
> and it
> runs swimmingly.
>
> The server I am now doing mySQL on won't allow me to create other than myISAM tables.
>
David,
- Original Message -
From: ""David Griffiths"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: InnodB Hot Backup Questions
> Sorry - haven't had a chance to respond till now.
>
>
nt: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: InnoDB case sensitive collation
> Matt Mastrangelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How can an InnoDB table be created with case sensitive collation? The
> > example below creates two identical tables, one MyISAM and the other
> &
I'm using version 4.1.1-alpha, running on RedHat Linux 9.
Victoria Reznichenko wrote:
Matt Mastrangelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How can an InnoDB table be created with case sensitive collation? The
example below creates two identical tables, one MyISAM and the other
InnoDB. The InnoDB fails
Matt Mastrangelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How can an InnoDB table be created with case sensitive collation? The
> example below creates two identical tables, one MyISAM and the other
> InnoDB. The InnoDB fails when inserting primary keys that differ in case
> only. What am I doing wrong?
Wh
Sorry - haven't had a chance to respond till now.
> > So "restore" == "apply-log", but one works on any computer, and the
other
> > only works on the computer that it's node locked to.
> --apply-log works also in any computer regardless of the hostname or the
> license expiration date.
I'm runn
On 14 May 2004, at 1:14 am, Dathan Vance Pattishall wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Zawodny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:03 PM
To: Dathan Vance Pattishall
Cc: 'Tim Cutts'; 'MySQL List'
Subject: Re: InnoDB filesystem
On Thu, May 13
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 01:40:37PM +1000, Chris Nolan wrote:
> Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
>
> >
> >I think that the problem is that it's *not* a 64 bit OS. It's just an
> >Intel 32bit box with > 4GB of memory. And sine MySQL doesn't do PAE,
> >it'll never see that extra memory.
> >
>
> Didn't InnoD
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 04:51:27PM -0700, Dathan Vance Pattishall wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Tim Cutts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:11 AM
To: MySQL List
Subject: Re: InnoDB filesystem
On 13 May 2004, at 3:34 pm, Dan Nelson wrote
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremy Zawodny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:03 PM
> To: Dathan Vance Pattishall
> Cc: 'Tim Cutts'; 'MySQL List'
> Subject: Re: InnoDB filesystem
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 04:
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 04:51:27PM -0700, Dathan Vance Pattishall wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tim Cutts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:11 AM
> > To: MySQL List
> > Subject: Re: InnoDB filesystem
> >
&
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Cutts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:11 AM
> To: MySQL List
> Subject: Re: InnoDB filesystem
>
>
> On 13 May 2004, at 3:34 pm, Dan Nelson wrote:
>
> >>> Pros: performance and bypassing
> -Original Message-
> From: Lou Olsten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 6:45 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: InnoDB Questions
>
> Need someone with some insight or experience with InnoDB (Heikki?? :-)
>
> a) Where does InnoDB store all of this information
On 13 May 2004, at 3:34 pm, Dan Nelson wrote:
Pros: performance and bypassing the filesystem cache.
I believe most OSes support direct file access which either bypasses or
minimizes cache effects, and InnoDB will enable it if possible.
Solaris direct file I/O performance on UFS is within a couple
In the last episode (May 13), JFL said:
> >>I've been told that InnoDB on a raw partition is the fastest setup.
> >
> >Actually, you've been told that it's probably the fastest.
>
> Correct. Sorry :)
>
> >Check the InnoDB docs. They explain how to setup raw disk
> >partitions. You'll be using d
601 - 700 of 1607 matches
Mail list logo