On 2015/05/07 19:42, Paul Halliday wrote:
Should have showed the whole thing. Take a look here (click image to see
full output):
http://www.pintumbler.org/tmp
I don't see why this worries you. Joining often increases variation.
Indeed, if in some case an inner join never did, mayb
Should have showed the whole thing. Take a look here (click image to see
full output):
http://www.pintumbler.org/tmp
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:11 PM, shawn l.green
wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 5/7/2015 10:17 AM, Paul Halliday wrote:
>
>> Fighting a bit with this one...
>>
>> If I do something like (
First, have you tried GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT types) ?
Second I see my counts rise just as my group_concat() terms when I do
something similar to what you're talking about. Also, here:
val c_types d_types
3t9,t9,t9 a2,a3,a9
Your column headers don't seem to match your query.
Hi Paul,
On 5/7/2015 10:17 AM, Paul Halliday wrote:
Fighting a bit with this one...
If I do something like (pseudo):
SELECT count(val) AS n, GROUP_CONCAT(types) AS c_types FROM tbl1
returns something like:
n c_types
1 t9
when I add a left join though:
SELECT count(val) AS n, GROUP_CONCAT(
Fighting a bit with this one...
If I do something like (pseudo):
SELECT count(val) AS n, GROUP_CONCAT(types) AS c_types FROM tbl1
returns something like:
n c_types
1 t9
when I add a left join though:
SELECT count(val) AS n, GROUP_CONCAT(types) AS c_types,
GROUP_CONCAT(two.types) AS d_types
pwd
> /usr/bin
> [root@master bin]# /usr/bin/mysqladmin -u root password '123456'
> bash: mysqladmin: command not found
>
> [root@master bin]# ls mysqladmin
> ls: mysqladmin: No such file or directory
>
> [root@master bin]# mysql_secure_installation
> Can't find a
Am 04.05.2014 08:29, schrieb EdwardKing:
> I'm newbie to mysql and I want to install mysql under Centos 5.8 using
> MySQL-server-5.5.37-1.linux2.6.i386.rpm, I use following command to intall
> mysql
>
> #[root@master software]# rpm -ivh MySQL-server-5.5.37-1.linux2.6.i386.rpm
> Preparing...
uch file or directory
[root@master bin]# mysql_secure_installation
Can't find a 'mysql' client in PATH or ./bin
How to install mysql and start mysql? Why are the commands of mysqladmin and
mysql_secure_installation fail? I am puzzled with it for many days, I still
can't
On 09/27/2013 12:48 AM, Anders Karlsson wrote:
Try specifying the utf8_bin collation instead and that will work.
or if you need comparisons to be case insensitive, but still want
to have accented letters be considered different to their base
form and to each other you may want to have a look h
That is because of the collation. It's the collations that determines
character equality. I can't tell what the collation is in your case for
the columns us, es, de, es and fr. Also, that you match character sets
in different columns is usually not a good idea, unless you have a good
reason for
Hi,
> I wold expect this NOT to match.
This should be because the fields you are comparing are utf8_general_ci,
this collation groups characters in 'classes' so that all variants of what
are considered to belong to the same character type, are put in that class.
Equality comparison is done compar
How come MySQL is not differentiating between these characters?
SELECT text_id, us, de, es, fr
FROM texts
WHERE us = fr;
Results in matching here. Notice the difference in the "scene" vs "scène"
text_id us es de fr
-- -- -- -
Assuming Linux, check where it's listening using "netstat -lptn".
lx wrote:
>hi all:
>I'm a new one. I have a mysql server in 192.168.27.72 , and a mysql
>client in 192.168.23.73.
>I use this way:
> mysql -h 192.168.27.72 -u root -p
>
>the ERROR message is:
>ERROR 2003 (HY000): Can't connect
hi all:
I'm a new one. I have a mysql server in 192.168.27.72 , and a mysql
client in 192.168.23.73.
I use this way:
mysql -h 192.168.27.72 -u root -p
the ERROR message is:
ERROR 2003 (HY000): Can't connect to MySQL server on '192.168.27.72' (111)
##
Hello everyone,
I'm sending a COM_EXECUTE_STMT message and the server returns an:
Error 1048 - #23000 - Column 'number_tinyint' cannot be null
The query is like this:
insert into numbers (
number_tinyint,
number_smallint,
number_mediumint,
number_int,
number_bigint,
number_decimal,
number_float
- Original Message -
> From: "Eric Bergen"
>
> Anger and OS religious arguments the real answer is that is just how
> the option parsing code works. It doesn't always have to make sense.
Ye gods, it's an outbreak of common sense! Someone quarantine that man before
it spreads!
In all se
don't have to type out the full long arg
> >> as long as you type enough that it only matches one option. For
> >> example mysql --so is enough to mean socket but mysql --s isn't
> >> because it can't be distinguished from 'show' variables. Th
ket but mysql --s isn't
>> because it can't be distinguished from 'show' variables. This gets
>> confusing with things like b. mysql --b is batch mode. So is mysql -B
>> but mysql -b is no beep. Confused yet?
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ti
Harald >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 19.11.2012 02:07, schrieb Tianyin Xu:
> >> > You are saying as long as admins are careful, there's no
> >> misconfiguration?
> >> > But why misconfigurations are so pervasive?
> >> >
19.11.2012 02:07, schrieb Tianyin Xu:
>> > You are saying as long as admins are careful, there's no
>> misconfiguration?
>> > But why misconfigurations are so pervasive?
>> > Simply because the admins are not careful enough?
>>
>> yes
>>
&
On 11/19/2012 10:27 AM, walter harms wrote:
hi List,
i get occasionally the following error:
ERROR 2013 (HY000): Lost connection to MySQL server at 'sending authentication
information', system error: 32
$ perror 32
OS error code 32: Broken pipe
Just to start.
If you want help you should inc
It is always fun to watch people get into a conflict about something silly and
unimportant...
On 18.11.2012, at 18:13, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 19.11.2012 02:07, schrieb Tianyin Xu:
>> You are saying as long as admins are careful, there's no misconfig
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 19.11.2012 02:07, schrieb Tianyin Xu:
> > You are saying as long as admins are careful, there's no
> misconfiguration?
> > But why misconfigurations are so pervasive?
> > Simply because the adm
Am 19.11.2012 02:07, schrieb Tianyin Xu:
> You are saying as long as admins are careful, there's no misconfiguration?
> But why misconfigurations are so pervasive?
> Simply because the admins are not careful enough?
yes
> I apologize for my lack of respect. I don't
s are case insensitive. Examples?
> PostgreSQL,
> > Apache httpd, OpenLDAP, Squid, etc.
> > That's why I'm curious. (Yes, please tell me there's no other
> case-insensitive software)
>
> i never would came to the idea write options
> not EXACTLY like they are
Am 19.11.2012 01:27, schrieb Tianyin Xu:
> I'm not saying the file names but the configuration directives.
> At least for most servers I have managed so far,
> all the configuration directives are case insensitive. Examples? PostgreSQL,
> Apache httpd, OpenLDAP, Squid, etc.
Hi, Reindl,
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 18.11.2012 23:59, schrieb Tianyin Xu:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm just curious why MySQL parses its configuration directives (i.e., the
> > ones in my.cnf) in a case sensitive way?
> &g
Am 18.11.2012 23:59, schrieb Tianyin Xu:
> Hi,
>
> I'm just curious why MySQL parses its configuration directives (i.e., the
> ones in my.cnf) in a case sensitive way?
>
> For example, Having "Port=3309", will receive "unknown variable 'Port=3309&qu
Hi,
I'm just curious why MySQL parses its configuration directives (i.e., the
ones in my.cnf) in a case sensitive way?
For example, Having "Port=3309", will receive "unknown variable 'Port=3309".
I guess there must be some concern for this. Could anyone
ts.mysql.com
> Subject: why this query doesn't use index?
>
> Hello,
>
> can you tell me why my this query doesn't use the index?
>
>
> mysql> explain select * from ipl
> can you tell me why my this query doesn't use the index?
>
>
> mysql> explain select * from iploc where 1902800418 between start_ip
> and end_ip;
Hazarding a very quick guess: if this table is what I think it is (NON-
overlapping IP ranges + (geo)location), you mig
Hello,
can you tell me why my this query doesn't use the index?
mysql> explain select * from iploc where 1902800418 between start_ip
and end_ip;
++-+---+--+---+--+-+--+---+-+
| id | select_type | table | type | possi
g both options on your dataset. Remember to flush both the OS
disk cache and the mysql buffer pool between runs, so that your benchmarks
are actually reflecting cold runs instead of partially warmed up runs.
So why do I believe no index is faster for your particular query? Well, a
secondary index (
column used in the order by caluse, should be the first column in the
select statement to make the index work
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 11.07.2012 11:43, schrieb Ewen Fortune:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Reindl Harald
> wrote:
> >> the m
Am 11.07.2012 11:43, schrieb Ewen Fortune:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Reindl Harald
> wrote:
>> the mysql query optimizer is somehow stupid
>
> Its not stupid - remember its not trying to find the best index,
> rather its trying to find the least costly plan
> to return the d
in set (0.00 sec)
Cheers,
Ewen
>
> a simple query, order by with a indexed column and
> you have to use where order_by_field>0 - why the
> hell is mysqld not happy that a key is on the field
> used in "order by"?
>
> mysql> EXPLAIN SELECT * FRO
the mysql query optimizer is somehow stupid
a simple query, order by with a indexed column and
you have to use where order_by_field>0 - why the
hell is mysqld not happy that a key is on the field
used in "order by"?
mysql> EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM cms1_quickbar_groups ORDE
plain plan. Also you can
retrieve specific columns on which indexes are created to use the feature
of "Covering index".
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> my reason for create a key on "qg_sort" was primary
> for this query - but why is here &#x
my reason for create a key on "qg_sort" was primary
for this query - but why is here 'filesort' used?
mysql> EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM cms1_quickbar_groups ORDER BY qg_sort ASC;
++-+--+--+---+--+-+--+--
On 05/07/2012 12:30 PM, Zhangzhigang wrote:
Thanks, i thought about this answer in the past, and i appreciate your reply.
How about the omelet?
What's your method?
--
RMA.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/m
I used to have these issues in mysql version 5.0.41.
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Johan De Meersman wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Ananda Kumar"
> >
> > If numeric, then why are u using quotes. With quotes, mysql will
> > igno
- Original Message -
> From: "Ananda Kumar"
>
> If numeric, then why are u using quotes. With quotes, mysql will
> ignore the index and do a full table scan
Will it? Common sense dictates that it would convert to the column's native
type before comparing; a
If numeric, then why are u using quotes. With quotes, mysql will ignore the
index and do a full table scan
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Andrés Tello wrote:
>
>
> Yes, I'm using indexes, accountid is the primary key, and is numeric and
> autoincrement. The process doing t
Yes, I'm using indexes, accountid is the primary key, and is numeric and
autoincrement. The process doing the deadlock is no longer done...
The structure of the inserted database has changed.
Originaly it was a single table with 219millions rows, now I partitioned
the hable in... 60 tables, 1 for
is accountid a number or varchar column
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Andrés Tello wrote:
> While doning a batch process...
>
> show full processlist show:
>
> | 544 | prod | 90.0.0.51:51262 | tmz2012 | Query |6 |
> end | update `account` set `balance`= 0.00 +
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrés Tello [mailto:mr.crip...@gmail.com]
> Sent: May 12, 2012 10:08 AM
> To: mysql
> Subject: Mysql is toying me... why sometimes an insert or update can be
> slow!? I getting bald cuz this
>
> While doning a batch process...
>
&
While doning a batch process...
show full processlist show:
| 544 | prod | 90.0.0.51:51262 | tmz2012 | Query |6 |
end | update `account` set `balance`= 0.00 +
'-4000' where accountid='2583092'
No other process, lo locking no nothing...
so you take this same query.
" that aggregate data to make
"reports" more efficient. (I have seen 10x to 1000x performance improvement.)
Should we discuss this?
> -Original Message-
> From: Karen Abgarian [mailto:a...@apple.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:37 PM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.c
ndly:
It bypass BTree traversals, When the index are too big to be cached which
involves disk hit(s) fro each row inserted.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours
Zhigang Zhang
发件人： Rick James
收件人： Zhangzhigang
抄送： "mysql@lists.mysql.com"
发送日期：
enchmark _*your*_ case.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Claudio Nanni [mailto:claudio.na...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 09, 2012 8:34 AM
> *To:* Rick James
> *Cc:* Zhangzhigang; mysql@lists.mysql.com
> *Subject:* Re: 回复： Why is creating indexes faster after inserting massive
> data rows?
e will have to hit disk.
> If you are using normal disks, that is on the order of 125 rows per second
> that you can insert �C Terrible! Sortmerge is likely to average over 10,000.
>
>
>
> From: Zhangzhigang [mailto:zzgang_2...@yahoo.com.cn]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 9:13
rows per second that
you can insert – Terrible! Sortmerge is likely to average over 10,000.
From: Zhangzhigang [mailto:zzgang_2...@yahoo.com.cn]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 9:13 PM
To: Rick James
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: 回复： Why is creating indexes faster after inserting massive data
James...
>* By doing all the indexes after building the table (or at least all the
>non-UNIQUE indexes), "sort merge" can be used. This technique had been highly
>optimized over the past half-century, and is more efficient.
I have a question about "sort merge":
Oh... I thought that it uses it's own buffer cache as same as the InnoDB. I
have got a mistake for this, thanks!
发件人： Karen Abgarian
收件人： mysql@lists.mysql.com
发送日期： 2012年5月9日, 星期三, 上午 2:51
主题: Re: 回复： 回复： 回复： Why is creating indexes faster after inse
Hi,
If MyISAM tables were being written directly to disk, the MyISAM tables would
be so slow that nobody would ever use them.That's the cornerstone of their
performance, that the writes do not wait for the physical I/O to complete!
On May 8, 2012, at 3:07 AM, Johan De Meersman wrote:
>
Ok, thanks for your help.
发件人： Johan De Meersman
收件人： Zhangzhigang
抄送： mysql@lists.mysql.com; Karen Abgarian
发送日期： 2012年5月8日, 星期二, 下午 6:07
主题: Re: 回复： 回复： 回复： Why is creating indexes faster after inserting massive data
rows?
- Original Message
- Original Message -
> From: "Zhangzhigang"
>
> As i known, the mysql writes the data to disk directly but does not
> use the Os cache when the table is updating.
If it were to use the OS cache for reading but not writing, then the OS cache
would be inconsistent with the underlying file
- Original Message -
> From: "Zhangzhigang"
>
> The mysql does not use this approach what you said which is
> complicated.
>
> I agree with ohan De Meersman.
Umm... It's not a matter of who you agree with :-) Karen's technical detail is
quite correct; I merely presented a simplified pic
e the Os
cache when the table is updating.
If it writes to the Os cache, which leads to massive system invoking, when the
table is inserted a lot of rows one by one.
发件人： Karen Abgarian
收件人： mysql@lists.mysql.com
发送日期： 2012年5月8日, 星期二, 上午 11:37
主题: Re: 回复： 回复
ysql does not use this approach what you said which is complicated.
>
> I agree with ohan De Meersman.
>
>
>
> 发件人： Karen Abgarian
> 收件人： mysql@lists.mysql.com
> 发送日期： 2012年5月8日, 星期二, 上午 1:30
> 主题: Re: 回复： Why is creating indexes fast
Karen...
The mysql does not use this approach what you said which is complicated.
I agree with ohan De Meersman.
发件人： Karen Abgarian
收件人： mysql@lists.mysql.com
发送日期： 2012年5月8日, 星期二, 上午 1:30
主题: Re: 回复： Why is creating indexes faster after inserting massive
e faster.
>
> Based on this discussion, you should note that "random" indexes, such as
> GUIDs, MD5s, etc, tend to
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Karen Abgarian [mailto:a...@apple.com]
>> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 10:31 AM
>> To: mysql@list
Hi,
A couple cents to this.
There isn't really a million of block writes. The record gets added to the
block, but that gets modified in OS cache if we assume MyISAM tables and in the
Innodb buffer if we assume InnoDB tables. In both cases, the actual writing
does not take place and does
ce for the index info.
InnoDB does something similar, but it is limited to the size of the buffer_pool.
> -Original Message-
> From: Johan De Meersman [mailto:vegiv...@tuxera.be]
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:06 AM
> To: Zhangzhigang
> Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subj
an [mailto:vegiv...@tuxera.be]
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 1:29 AM
> To: Zhangzhigang
> Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: Why is creating indexes faster after inserting massive
> data rows?
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Zhangzhigang"
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Zhangzhigang"
> Ok, Creating the index *after* the inserts, the index gets created in
> a single operation.
> But the indexes has to be updating row by row after the data rows has
> all been inserted. Does it work in this way?
No, when you create an index on
发送日期： 2012年5月7日, 星期一, 下午 4:59
> 主题: Re: 回复： Why is creating indexes faster after inserting massive data
> rows?
>
> On 2012/05/07 10:53, Zhangzhigang wrote:
> > johan
> >> Plain and simple: the indices get updated after every insert statement,
> > whereas if y
Thanks, i thought about this answer in the past, and i appreciate your reply.
发件人： Alex Schaft
收件人： mysql@lists.mysql.com
发送日期： 2012年5月7日, 星期一, 下午 4:59
主题: Re: 回复： Why is creating indexes faster after inserting massive data rows?
On 2012/05/07 10:53
Ok, but my opinion is that the sorting algorithms is not impact this
difference, two ways all do B+ tree inserts.
发件人： Claudio Nanni
收件人： Zhangzhigang
抄送： Johan De Meersman ; "mysql@lists.mysql.com"
发送日期： 2012年5月7日, 星期一, 下午 5:01
主题: Re:
___
> 发件人： Johan De Meersman
> 收件人： Zhangzhigang
> 抄送： mysql@lists.mysql.com
> 发送日期： 2012年5月7日, 星期一, 下午 4:28
> 主题: Re: Why is creating indexes faster after inserting massive data rows?
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Zhangzhigang"
> >
>
On 2012/05/07 10:53, Zhangzhigang wrote:
johan
Plain and simple: the indices get updated after every insert statement,
whereas if you only create the index *after* the inserts, the index gets
created in a single operation, which is a lot more efficient..
Ok, Creating the index *after* t
com
发送日期： 2012年5月7日, 星期一, 下午 4:28
主题: Re: Why is creating indexes faster after inserting massive data rows?
- Original Message -
> From: "Zhangzhigang"
>
> Creating indexes after inserting massive data rows is faster than
> before inserting data rows.
> Please te
- Original Message -
> From: "Zhangzhigang"
>
> Creating indexes after inserting massive data rows is faster than
> before inserting data rows.
> Please tell me why.
Plain and simple: the indices get updated after every insert statement, whereas
if you only cre
insert
all data rows firstly and then create indexes. Normally, the sum using
time(inserting data rows and creating indexes) of first way is longer than the
second way.
Please tell me why?
发件人： Ananda Kumar
收件人： Zhangzhigang
抄送： "mysql@lists.mysq
which version of mysql are you using.
Is this secondary index.?
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Zhangzhigang wrote:
> hi all:
>
> I have a question:
>
> Creating indexes after inserting massive data rows is faster than before
> inserting data rows.
> Please tell me why.
>
On 24 Apr 12, at 15:57, mysql-digest-h...@lists.mysql.com wrote:
> From: shawn green
>
>
> On 4/22/2012 11:18 PM, Zhangzhigang wrote:
>> Why does not the mysql developer team to do this optimization?
>
> When the Optimizer is told to sort a result set in the order
http://www.percona.com/ppc2009/PPC2009_mysql_pagination.pdf
Let me know if that is not clear enough.
> -Original Message-
> From: Zhangzhigang [mailto:zzgang_2...@yahoo.com.cn]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 6:56 PM
> To: Rick James
> Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject
eft off"?
--- 12年4月24日，周二, Rick James 写道：
> 发件人: Rick James
> 主题: RE: Why does the limit use the early row lookup.
> 收件人: "张志刚" , "mysql@lists.mysql.com"
>
> 日期: 2012年4月24日,周二,上午2:54
> InnoDB or MyISAM?
> PRIMARY KEY (id) is a separate index in My
ort is nearly Order(1),
and the memory is only slightly more than the cost of 10 rows.
> -Original Message-
> From: shawn green [mailto:shawn.l.gr...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 5:52 AM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: Why does the limit use the ea
depend on all of these:
* OFFSET
* LIMIT
* Number of rows in the table
* Width of the table versus width of the key involved.
> -Original Message-
> From: 张志刚 [mailto:zhig...@leju.sina.com.cn]
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 7:30 PM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Sub
On 4/22/2012 11:18 PM, Zhangzhigang wrote:
> Why does not the mysql developer team to do this optimization?
>
> --- 12年4月20日，周五, Reindl Harald 写道：
>
>> ...
>>
>> because the mysql optimizer until now is really
>> bad in many situations - order by rand() mak
Why does not the mysql developer team to do this optimization?
--- 12年4月20日，周五, Reindl Harald 写道：
> 发件人: Reindl Harald
> 主题: Re: Why does the limit use the early row lookup.
> 收件人: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> 日期: 2012年4月20日,周五,下午3:50
>
>
> Am 20.04.2012 04:29, schrieb 张志刚:
i know what it does, but it is simply idiotic
select pri_key_field from table order by rand() limit 10;
why in the world can this not be doe with an index?
only the auto_increment field is involved
soryy, no understanding
it is idiotic that you need to "select pri_key_field from table
lto:h.rei...@thelounge.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 12:50 AM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Re: Why does the limit use the early row lookup.
>
>
>
> Am 20.04.2012 04:29, schrieb 张志刚:
> > My point is that the limit can use late row lookup: lookup rows af
olumn is not in the indexes.
>
> Tell me why?
because the mysql optimizer until now is really
bad in many situations - order by rand() makes a
temporary table wil ALL data as example even with limit
select * from table order by rand() limit 10;
reads and writes the whole table to disk
have
machines with
many websites / db-users, you describe the result of
using them - they are only useful on dedicated servers
with only one db-user
> This leads to eventually exceeding max_connections, even if
> connections are rare. Once he hits 41, he will be issuing 404s, or other bad
>
I'll disagree with your disagreement.
Many web servers maintain persistent connections. This leads to
eventually exceeding max_connections, even if connections are rare.
Once he hits 41, he will be issuing 404s, or other bad stuff.
Also, having 1000 http threads hanging around is a waste wh
Am 27.03.2012 23:24, schrieb Rick James:
> MaxClients 1000
> could overwhelm max_connections = 41 . Strongly recommend you decrease
> MaxClients to less than max_connections
> (not the other way around).
totally wrong!
not every http-connection implies a myql-connection
a website ty
MaxClients 1000
could overwhelm max_connections = 41 . Strongly recommend you decrease
MaxClients to less than max_connections (not the other way around).
Uptime| 18492
Not very long to see stuff.
| innodb_buffer_pool_size | 8388608 |
| key_buffer_size | 8
Hi Rick
Thank you for replying.
Please see my answers to your questions.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Rick James wrote:
> Do you have 12GB of RAM?
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem: 12038 11959 78 0139 1
Do you have 12GB of RAM?
Is this a 64-bit mysqld?
Let's see
SHOW VARIABLES LIKE '%buffer%';
SHOW GLOBAL STATUS LIKE 'Max%';
SHOW GLOBAL STATUS LIKE 'Up%';
What is Apache's MaxClients?
On 3/27/12 6:25 AM, Brent Clark wrote:
Good day KarthiK.P.R
Other than the replication settings in '/e
Good day KarthiK.P.R
Other than the replication settings in '/etc/mysql/conf.d/replication.cnf' and
our /etc/mysql/conf.d/custom.cnf
xyz-web02:/data# cat /etc/mysql/conf.d/custom.cnf
[mysqld]
innodb_file_per_table
bind-address = 0.0.0.0
datadir = /data
binlog_format=mixed
key_buffer_size=8
HI Brent,
Can you please paste your configuration file settings (my.cnf) ? It will
help to identify where things went wrong.
Is there any other memory consuming application running on the server
beyond mysql ?
Regards,
KarthiK.P.R
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Brent Clark wrote:
> Hey Guy
Hey Guys
Yesterday I sent an email, about '1 client is using or hasn't closed the table
properly', but the problem is actually bigger than I realised.
We run Mysql replication, and on the second node, Mysql is crashing with
'mysqld got signal 6' every so often.
Other than the drives, we have
- Original Message -
> From: "Cifer Lee"
>
> it seems none of you hava answered my question.
Yes, that happens :-)
I'm slightly confused as to the difference between "user variables" and "local
variables", though. Are you saying you couldn't just declare @myvar and use it
in your
Reindl Harald <<mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net>
> h.rei...@thelounge.net>
> >Date: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:17 PM
> >Subject: Re: why must user variable in EXECUTE USING clause ?
> >To: Cifer Lee <<mailto:mantia...@gmail.com>mantia...@gmail.com>
> >
&
ly known)
At 21.38 26/03/2012 +0800, Cifer Lee wrote:
>-- Forwarded message --
>From: Reindl Harald <<mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net>h.rei...@thelounge.net>
>Date: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:17 PM
>Subject: Re: why must user variable in EXECUTE USING claus
-- Forwarded message --
From: Reindl Harald
Date: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: why must user variable in EXECUTE USING clause ?
To: Cifer Lee
would you PLEASE send to the list instead off-list
and put your answer BELOW instead to-posting?
is it really so difficult
Am 26.03.2012 14:13, schrieb Cifer Lee:
> why can't be local variable which declared in DECLARE clause?
what are you speaking about?
keep in mind that we can not read your thoughts
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 10 Mar, 2012, at 7:06 pm, Cifer Lee wrote:
> when we call procedure
> normally we declare the parameter out of the procedure and pass the
> variable to procedure
> like this
>
> set @x=1;
> call *a_procedure*(@x);
>
> why can not directly pass the digit 1 to th
1 - 100 of 1346 matches
Mail list logo
