On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > One more thing that annoyed me. If you started a process, such as a > > large DDL operation, or heaven forbid, a cartesian join (what? I never > > do that!). > > I believe InnoDB also has O(n) rollback time. eg. if you are rolling > back 100 million row changes, it takes a long, long time. In PostgreSQL > rolling back is O(1)...
Actually, it takes signifigantly longer to rollback than to roll forward, so to speak, so that if you inserted for 10,000 rows and it took 5 minutes, it would take upwards of 30 times as long to roll back. This is from the docs: http://www.mysql.com/documentation/mysql/bychapter/manual_Table_types.html#InnoDB_tuning Point 8: # Beware of big rollbacks of mass inserts: InnoDB uses the insert buffer to save disk I/O in inserts, but in a corresponding rollback no such mechanism is used. A disk-bound rollback can take 30 times the time of the corresponding insert. Killing the database process will not help because the rollback will start again at the database startup. The only way to get rid of a runaway rollback is to increase the buffer pool so that the rollback becomes CPU-bound and runs fast, or delete the whole InnoDB database. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
