- Original Message -
From: Markus Falb markus.f...@fasel.at
With a low timeout the connection will be terminated sooner, but if
the application retries another connection is taken. I could have raised
the timeout with the same effect on the db side (1 process is waiting)
but maybe
Afternoon
Somebody knows how can I log or measure the index use ?
Thanks
Carlos
Am 15.10.2012 17:24, schrieb Carlos Eduardo Caldi:
Afternoon
Somebody knows how can I log or measure the index use ?
explain select whatever from table where bla=value
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
I want to count how many time one index was used during a day, do you now how
to log it to count?
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:27:54 +0200
From: h.rei...@thelounge.net
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Can I measure the use of index?
Am 15.10.2012 17:24, schrieb Carlos Eduardo
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Carlos Eduardo Caldi
ce_ca...@hotmail.com wrote:
Somebody knows how can I log or measure the index use ?
http://www.percona.com/doc/percona-toolkit/2.1/pt-index-usage.html
- Perrin
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
- Original Message -
From: trimurthy skd.trimur...@gmail.com
hi sir even i also have a doubt regarding the connections. suppose if
there is an existing connection to the server with the user name
xxx and password if i send another request with the same user name
and password
Hi, list.
Sorry for the long subject, but I'm really interested in solving this and
need a help:
I've got a table:
mysql show create table send_sms_test;
Hi, I've just checked on MySQL-5.5.28
it acts absolutely same.
I need to use (priority,time) KEY instead of (time, priority) because query
results in better performance.
With first key used there is no need to sort at all, whilst if using latter:
mysql *desc select * from send_sms_test FORCE
* Rows = 11 / 22 -- don't take the numbers too seriously; they are crude
approximations based on estimated cardinality.
* The 11 comes from the LIMIT -- therefore useless in judging the efficiency.
(The 22 may be 2*11; I don't know.)
* Run the EXPLAINs without LIMIT -- that will avoid the
Sorry, my previous e-mail was a test on MySQL-5.5.28 on an empty table.
Here is the MySQL-5.1 Percona testing table:
mysql select count(*) from send_sms_test;
+--+
| count(*) |
+--+
| 143879 |
+--+
1 row in set (0.03 sec)
Without LIMIT:
mysql desc select * from
Sorry, forgot to say:
mysql show variables like 'long_query_time%';
+-+---+
| Variable_name | Value |
+-+---+
| long_query_time | 10.00 |
+-+---+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
It's getting in the log only due:
mysql
I don't fully understand Handler numbers, either. But note the vast difference
in Handler_read_next, as if the second test had to read (sequentially scan) a
lot more stuff (in the index or the data).
Summary:
INDEX(time, priority) -- slower; bigger Handler numbers; shorter key_len;
Ø My initial question was why MySQL logs it in the slow log if the query uses
an INDEX?
That _may_ be worth a bug report.
A _possible_ answer... EXPLAIN presents what the optimizer is in the mood for
at that moment. It does not necessarily reflect what it was in the mood for
when it ran
Thanks a lot for all your comments!
I did disable Query cache before testing with
set query_cache_type=OFF
for the current session.
I will report this to the MySQL bugs site later.
2012/10/16 Rick James rja...@yahoo-inc.com
**Ø **My initial question was why MySQL logs it in the slow log
Hi,
If you are using Percona Server, you can use this query:
SELECT DISTINCT s.table_schema,
s.table_name,
s.index_name
FROM information_schema.statistics `s`
LEFT JOIN information_schema.index_statistics indxs
ON ( s.table_schema =
For the record mariadb also has table and index statistics. Including
statistics on temporary tables.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Lixun Peng pengli...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
If you are using Percona Server, you can use this query:
SELECT DISTINCT s.table_schema,
16 matches
Mail list logo
