On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 04:24:02PM +0000, Alan Brown wrote: > On 26/02/13 09:42, Uwe Schuerkamp wrote: > > >I wonder if dumping the file table and then > >re-importing it to an innodb replacement would have been quicker? > > In general: Yes. > >
Hi folks, last night I managed to shrink a 300GB File table down to a very reasonable 85GB by exporting, dropping and re-importing the table (about 500 million rows). Dumping the table on an idle bacula server (see earlier posts for machine specs) took around 90 minutes and resulted in a 55GB sql file. Dropping the table was a breeze (about a minute or so), re-importing took around 3 hours: date ; time mysql -pn1onex bacula < file_2013_03_20.sql ; date Mi 20. Mär 22:35:14 CET 2013 real 165m12.748s user 15m17.358s sys 1m2.320s Do 21. Mär 01:20:27 CET 2013 Post-Import File table size: -rw-rw---- 1 mysql mysql 8,7K 20. Mär 22:35 File.frm -rw-rw---- 1 mysql mysql 83G 21. Mär 01:20 File.ibd I hope you find this information useful when planning a migration from myisam to innodb. Feel free to post here if you have further questions or require more details. All the best, Uwe -- NIONEX --- Ein Unternehmen der Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
