Martin Jespersen schrieb:
Does anyone havea clue of how mysql optimizes empty fields and how
query speed is affected?
Why don't you read the part in the mysql documentation about the
opimization?
what will be better for queryspeed/size: adding them with NULL using
NULL as default or with
Does anyone havea clue of how mysql optimizes empty fields and how
query speed is affected?
i have a db with around 3 million rows where i need to add 2 new fields
- one smallint and one varchar(10)
for alot of the rows they will be empty, but because of query speed i
opt to put them ion
I'm currently trying to write a short SQL expression that will give me a
rough estimate of the disk-space usage of a particular bunch of rows in
a table.
For table 'example':
CREATE TABLE `example` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL auto_increment,
`blah` varchar(255) NOT NULL default '',
`blah2
Hi,
I have a configuration with 1 master and 2 slaves; all servers are
correctly running mysql-max-4.0.20.
All is fine, but I'm observing a strange usage of logs.
On one of the slaves I have:
mysql show slave status \G
*** 1. row ***
Nico Sabbi wrote:
[...]
There are 3 GB of logs that no one needs anymore. Since the master knows
that all
the slaves are correctly aligned up to a certain MASTER_LOG_POS, can't
it automatically remove the logs up to that position?
The problem here is that MySQL masters aren't necessarily aware of
See http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/PURGE_MASTER_LOGS.html
--
For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita
This email is sponsored by Ensita.net http://www.ensita.net/
__ ___ ___ __
/ |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ /Egor Egorov
/ /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/
Nico Sabbi wrote:
Hi,
I have a configuration with 1 master and 2 slaves; all servers are
correctly running mysql-max-4.0.20.
All is fine, but I'm observing a strange usage of logs.
On one of the slaves I have:
mysql show slave status \G
*** 1. row
Hello all,
I'm using mySQL for many databases, now I want to test innoDB so I have
created another DB (on the same machine) and I have populated it with the
same data of the first DB (via: insert into table_name select * from
db1.table_name);
I have this tables:
tableA: 80.000 recs
tableB,
Just to contribute our anecdotal experience, we also found a 2x increase
in space required when we converted our MyISAM tables over to InnoDB.
While it was surprising, it wasn't unexpected. We just had to go buy
another 60GB of disk space (luckily we had planned for this). :)
Owen
On Wed,
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 01:26:42PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone knows the reason of this disk usage of innoDB (it's 2 time
bigger than myISAM)
InnoDB has larger per-record overhead (row headers and such).
--
Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo!
[EMAIL
10 matches
Mail list logo
