php-general Digest 29 Oct 2008 07:47:06 -0000 Issue 5761
php-general Digest 29 Oct 2008 07:47:06 - Issue 5761 Topics (messages 282533 through 282557): Re: clear a mysql table 282533 by: Jim Lucas 282550 by: Lupus Michaelis Waste of storage space? 282534 by: Frank Arensmeier 282542 by: Chris 282543 by: Maciek Sokolewicz 282547 by: Bastien Koert 282557 by: Frank Arensmeier Regex validation 282535 by: VamVan 282536 by: Daniel P. Brown 282537 by: Richard Heyes 282538 by: Micah Gersten 282539 by: Boyd, Todd M. 282540 by: Yeti 282541 by: Nitsan Bin-Nun 282544 by: VamVan 282545 by: Micah Gersten 282548 by: Ashley Sheridan 282549 by: VamVan 282551 by: Lupus Michaelis 282552 by: Micah Gersten 282553 by: VamVan 282554 by: Micah Gersten Re: clean data 282546 by: Shawn McKenzie FImage $aSubDir 282555 by: John Taylor-Johnston 282556 by: John Taylor-Johnston Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To post to the list, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ---BeginMessage--- Lupus Michaelis wrote: Daniel P. Brown a écrit : In direct response to your question, you're looking for the TRUNCATE command. I hope he doesn't have any foreign keys nor triggers. I would ass-u-me that if someone had foreign keys and/or triggers setup that they would not need to ask how to clear/empty a table -- Jim Lucas Some men are born to greatness, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. Twelfth Night, Act II, Scene V by William Shakespeare ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Jim Lucas a écrit : I would ass-u-me that if someone had foreign keys and/or triggers setup that they would not need to ask how to clear/empty a table I never assume that kind of thing, because he could be cleaning a database he didn't designed. It happends. :) -- Mickaël Wolff aka Lupus Michaelis http://lupusmic.org ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- Hi all. In short, I am working on a system that allows me to keep track of changes to a large amount of short texts (a couple of thousand text snippets, two or three sentences per text). All text is stored in a database. As soon as a user changes some text (insert, delete, update), this action is recorded. Look at an article on e.g. Wikipedia and click History. This is more or less what I am trying to accomplish. Right now, my history class that takes care of all changes, is working pretty much as I want. The thing is that both the original text and the altered text is stored in the database every time the text is changed. My concern is that this will eventually evolve into a serious problem regarding amount of storage and performance. So, I am looking for a more efficient way to store all changes. Ideas I have come up with so far are: 1) Store the delta (=the actual change) of a text change. This could be done by utilizing the Pear package TextDiff. My idea was to compare the old with the new text with help of the TextDiff class. I would then grab the array containing the changes from TextDiff, serialize it and store this data into the db. The problem is that this is every thing else but efficient when it comes to smaller text (the serialized array holding the changes was actually larger than the two texts combined). 2) Do some kind of compression on the text to be stored. However, it seems that the build-in compression functions from PHP5 are more efficient when it comes to large texts. Any other ideas? thank you. //frank ps. I notice that Mediawiki also stores complete articles in the db (every time an article is updated, the hole article is stored in the database). ds. ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- 1) Store the delta (=the actual change) of a text change. This could be done by utilizing the Pear package TextDiff. My idea was to compare the old with the new text with help of the TextDiff class. I would then grab the array containing the changes from TextDiff, serialize it and store this data into the db. The problem is that this is every thing else but efficient when it comes to smaller text (the serialized array holding the changes was actually larger than the two texts combined). What happens when you want to restore a particular version? You have to go through each edition and apply patches. Could get very messy. I'd say you're on the right track in just storing each version. 2) Do some kind of compression on the text to be stored. However, it seems that the build-in compression functions from PHP5 are more efficient when it comes to large texts. All compression techniques (in or out of php) will work better on more text. -- Postgresql php
php-general Digest 29 Oct 2008 21:11:48 -0000 Issue 5762
php-general Digest 29 Oct 2008 21:11:48 - Issue 5762 Topics (messages 282558 through 282585): Re: Waste of storage space? 282558 by: Frank Arensmeier 282560 by: Frank Arensmeier 282561 by: Frank Arensmeier 282562 by: Maciek Sokolewicz 282573 by: Bastien Koert 282577 by: Aschwin Wesselius 282579 by: Bastien Koert 282580 by: Aschwin Wesselius Re: FImage $aSubDir 282559 by: Ashley Sheridan 282563 by: Maciek Sokolewicz Newbie: can I store flash file into Mysql DB 282564 by: vuthecuong 282565 by: Stut 282566 by: vuthecuong 282567 by: Stut 282568 by: vuthecuong 282572 by: Bastien Koert Mailing lists 282569 by: Richard Heyes 282570 by: Dotan Cohen 282571 by: Bjoern Bartels 282575 by: Michael Kubler 282576 by: Wolf 282582 by: Daniel P. Brown Re: Regex validation 282574 by: Bastien Koert 282578 by: ceo.l-i-e.com 282581 by: Yeti Re: create/write to psd file 282583 by: David Lidstone 282584 by: Ashley Sheridan General Mysql Connect 282585 by: Waynn Lue Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To post to the list, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ---BeginMessage--- 28 okt 2008 kl. 23.56 skrev Chris: 1) Store the delta (=the actual change) of a text change. This could be done by utilizing the Pear package TextDiff. My idea was to compare the old with the new text with help of the TextDiff class. I would then grab the array containing the changes from TextDiff, serialize it and store this data into the db. The problem is that this is every thing else but efficient when it comes to smaller text (the serialized array holding the changes was actually larger than the two texts combined). What happens when you want to restore a particular version? You have to go through each edition and apply patches. Could get very messy. Not only that. What would happen if they update TextDiff and all stored serialized arrays got obsolete? The system is aimed to store documents for several years to come. Besides that, doing some advanced search in the history/revision table would be very difficult. I'd say you're on the right track in just storing each version. 2) Do some kind of compression on the text to be stored. However, it seems that the build-in compression functions from PHP5 are more efficient when it comes to large texts. All compression techniques (in or out of php) will work better on more text. I noticed that too. //frank -- Postgresql php tutorials http://www.designmagick.com/ ---End Message--- ---BeginMessage--- 29 okt 2008 kl. 00.00 skrev Maciek Sokolewicz: Frank Arensmeier wrote: Hi all. In short, I am working on a system that allows me to keep track of changes to a large amount of short texts (a couple of thousand text snippets, two or three sentences per text). All text is stored in a database. As soon as a user changes some text (insert, delete, update), this action is recorded. Look at an article on e.g. Wikipedia and click History. This is more or less what I am trying to accomplish. Right now, my history class that takes care of all changes, is working pretty much as I want. The thing is that both the original text and the altered text is stored in the database every time the text is changed. My concern is that this will eventually evolve into a serious problem regarding amount of storage and performance. So, I am looking for a more efficient way to store all changes. Ideas I have come up with so far are: 1) Store the delta (=the actual change) of a text change. This could be done by utilizing the Pear package TextDiff. My idea was to compare the old with the new text with help of the TextDiff class. I would then grab the array containing the changes from TextDiff, serialize it and store this data into the db. The problem is that this is every thing else but efficient when it comes to smaller text (the serialized array holding the changes was actually larger than the two texts combined). 2) Do some kind of compression on the text to be stored. However, it seems that the build-in compression functions from PHP5 are more efficient when it comes to large texts. Any other ideas? thank you. //frank ps. I notice that Mediawiki also stores complete articles in the db (every time an article is updated, the hole article is stored in the database). ds. Hi Frank, why don't you simply make use of systems specifically designed for such things. eg. CVS or SVN (subversion.tigris.org). You could pretty easily tie it in with your application. It's quite compact, and pretty fast too. - Tul Hi Tul. I think
Fwd: [PHP] Waste of storage space?
Från: Yeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: ti 28 okt 2008 23.07.11 GMT+01:00 Till: Frank Arensmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ämne: Re: [PHP] Waste of storage space? Hej, why not do a simple strlen() before comparison? Like if strlen (or mb_strlen()) is less than 50 do not serialize/ compare. Or Like levenchtein(), You could do : ?php (strlen($string2) - similar_text($string,$string2)) ? to see how much characters have been changed. Thank you for your respons. I have thought of such a sorting mechanism too. But on the other hand, the biggest drawback would be that even minor changes that might be really important could get lost. And my goal is to really keep track on everything my users do. And, in the long run, the problem with the database that eventually could/will grow very large in size, is not solved. //frank ..please keep responses on list.
Re: [PHP] Waste of storage space?
28 okt 2008 kl. 23.56 skrev Chris: 1) Store the delta (=the actual change) of a text change. This could be done by utilizing the Pear package TextDiff. My idea was to compare the old with the new text with help of the TextDiff class. I would then grab the array containing the changes from TextDiff, serialize it and store this data into the db. The problem is that this is every thing else but efficient when it comes to smaller text (the serialized array holding the changes was actually larger than the two texts combined). What happens when you want to restore a particular version? You have to go through each edition and apply patches. Could get very messy. Not only that. What would happen if they update TextDiff and all stored serialized arrays got obsolete? The system is aimed to store documents for several years to come. Besides that, doing some advanced search in the history/revision table would be very difficult. I'd say you're on the right track in just storing each version. 2) Do some kind of compression on the text to be stored. However, it seems that the build-in compression functions from PHP5 are more efficient when it comes to large texts. All compression techniques (in or out of php) will work better on more text. I noticed that too. //frank -- Postgresql php tutorials http://www.designmagick.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: FImage $aSubDir
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 23:52 -0400, John Taylor-Johnston wrote:
Could it be this easy?
$chopped= strlen($aFn) - 4;
$filename = $chopped..txt;
printbrfont face='Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif' size=2
color='#99';
include($filename);
print/font;
John Taylor-Johnston wrote:
I have http://www.flash-here.com/downloads/fhimage.html installed. I
like it just the way it is.
But instead of displaying (see function below).
Instead of displaying the file name under the photo, weak excuse for a
caption,
I would like to open and nl2br the contents of a like named text file.
$chopped= strlen($aFn) - 4;
$openthis = $chopped..txt;
How do I proceed?
John
---original code
echo brcenter;
if($aSubDir == ) {
$l = strlen($aFn) - 4;
echo substr($aFn, 0, $l);
} else {
echo $aSubDir.[dir];
}
echo /center;
Yeah, but don't use the font tag.
Ash
www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: Waste of storage space?
29 okt 2008 kl. 00.00 skrev Maciek Sokolewicz: Frank Arensmeier wrote: Hi all. In short, I am working on a system that allows me to keep track of changes to a large amount of short texts (a couple of thousand text snippets, two or three sentences per text). All text is stored in a database. As soon as a user changes some text (insert, delete, update), this action is recorded. Look at an article on e.g. Wikipedia and click History. This is more or less what I am trying to accomplish. Right now, my history class that takes care of all changes, is working pretty much as I want. The thing is that both the original text and the altered text is stored in the database every time the text is changed. My concern is that this will eventually evolve into a serious problem regarding amount of storage and performance. So, I am looking for a more efficient way to store all changes. Ideas I have come up with so far are: 1) Store the delta (=the actual change) of a text change. This could be done by utilizing the Pear package TextDiff. My idea was to compare the old with the new text with help of the TextDiff class. I would then grab the array containing the changes from TextDiff, serialize it and store this data into the db. The problem is that this is every thing else but efficient when it comes to smaller text (the serialized array holding the changes was actually larger than the two texts combined). 2) Do some kind of compression on the text to be stored. However, it seems that the build-in compression functions from PHP5 are more efficient when it comes to large texts. Any other ideas? thank you. //frank ps. I notice that Mediawiki also stores complete articles in the db (every time an article is updated, the hole article is stored in the database). ds. Hi Frank, why don't you simply make use of systems specifically designed for such things. eg. CVS or SVN (subversion.tigris.org). You could pretty easily tie it in with your application. It's quite compact, and pretty fast too. - Tul Hi Tul. I think would be an idea worth investigating a little bit more. But what about performance? I am really not that familiar with version control systems like CVS etc. Let's say there are 30 different text snippets with 10 recorded changes each. And I want to see what changes users have made to those snippets. That would be 300 calls to the (filesystem based) CVS system. Would that be overheat? Besides that, in the database I am able to store more information about those recorded changes. E.g. the user ID and the time is currently stored as well. Can this be done with CVS as well? /frank -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Waste of storage space?
29 okt 2008 kl. 01.08 skrev Bastien Koert: On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Frank Arensmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all. In short, I am working on a system that allows me to keep track of changes to a large amount of short texts (a couple of thousand text snippets, two or three sentences per text). All text is stored in a database. As soon as a user changes some text (insert, delete, update), this action is recorded. Look at an article on e.g. Wikipedia and click History. This is more or less what I am trying to accomplish. Right now, my history class that takes care of all changes, is working pretty much as I want. The thing is that both the original text and the altered text is stored in the database every time the text is changed. My concern is that this will eventually evolve into a serious problem regarding amount of storage and performance. So, I am looking for a more efficient way to store all changes. Ideas I have come up with so far are: 1) Store the delta (=the actual change) of a text change. This could be done by utilizing the Pear package TextDiff. My idea was to compare the old with the new text with help of the TextDiff class. I would then grab the array containing the changes from TextDiff, serialize it and store this data into the db. The problem is that this is every thing else but efficient when it comes to smaller text (the serialized array holding the changes was actually larger than the two texts combined). 2) Do some kind of compression on the text to be stored. However, it seems that the build-in compression functions from PHP5 are more efficient when it comes to large texts. Any other ideas? thank you. //frank ps. I notice that Mediawiki also stores complete articles in the db (every time an article is updated, the hole article is stored in the database). ds. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php Save just the new version each time table like record_id //PK relates_to //FK item_text author_id timestamp much easier to work with Yes, maybe it's just as simple as that. Thanks. //frank -- Bastien Cat, the other other white meat
[PHP] Re: Waste of storage space?
Frank Arensmeier wrote: 29 okt 2008 kl. 00.00 skrev Maciek Sokolewicz: Frank Arensmeier wrote: Hi all. In short, I am working on a system that allows me to keep track of changes to a large amount of short texts (a couple of thousand text snippets, two or three sentences per text). All text is stored in a database. As soon as a user changes some text (insert, delete, update), this action is recorded. Look at an article on e.g. Wikipedia and click History. This is more or less what I am trying to accomplish. Right now, my history class that takes care of all changes, is working pretty much as I want. The thing is that both the original text and the altered text is stored in the database every time the text is changed. My concern is that this will eventually evolve into a serious problem regarding amount of storage and performance. So, I am looking for a more efficient way to store all changes. Ideas I have come up with so far are: 1) Store the delta (=the actual change) of a text change. This could be done by utilizing the Pear package TextDiff. My idea was to compare the old with the new text with help of the TextDiff class. I would then grab the array containing the changes from TextDiff, serialize it and store this data into the db. The problem is that this is every thing else but efficient when it comes to smaller text (the serialized array holding the changes was actually larger than the two texts combined). 2) Do some kind of compression on the text to be stored. However, it seems that the build-in compression functions from PHP5 are more efficient when it comes to large texts. Any other ideas? thank you. //frank ps. I notice that Mediawiki also stores complete articles in the db (every time an article is updated, the hole article is stored in the database). ds. Hi Frank, why don't you simply make use of systems specifically designed for such things. eg. CVS or SVN (subversion.tigris.org). You could pretty easily tie it in with your application. It's quite compact, and pretty fast too. - Tul Hi Tul. I think would be an idea worth investigating a little bit more. But what about performance? I am really not that familiar with version control systems like CVS etc. Let's say there are 30 different text snippets with 10 recorded changes each. And I want to see what changes users have made to those snippets. That would be 300 calls to the (filesystem based) CVS system. 30 calls actually, not 300 Would that be overheat? Besides that, in the database I am able to store more information about those recorded changes. E.g. the user ID and the time is currently stored as well. Can this be done with CVS as well? you can store a userid with these pretty easily (easier with svn than with cvs). And the exact date/time is stored automatically aswell. /frank -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: FImage $aSubDir
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 23:52 -0400, John Taylor-Johnston wrote:
Could it be this easy?
$chopped= strlen($aFn) - 4;
$filename = $chopped..txt;
printbrfont face='Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif' size=2
color='#99';
include($filename);
print/font;
John Taylor-Johnston wrote:
I have http://www.flash-here.com/downloads/fhimage.html installed. I
like it just the way it is.
But instead of displaying (see function below).
Instead of displaying the file name under the photo, weak excuse for a
caption,
I would like to open and nl2br the contents of a like named text file.
$chopped= strlen($aFn) - 4;
$openthis = $chopped..txt;
How do I proceed?
John
---original code
echo brcenter;
if($aSubDir == ) {
$l = strlen($aFn) - 4;
echo substr($aFn, 0, $l);
} else {
echo $aSubDir.[dir];
}
echo /center;
Yeah, but don't use the font tag.
Ash
www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
and no because you can't apply nl2br easily on the thing you included
there unless you use output buffering. You wanted to open a file and
nl2br it. How? You could use the fopen function (surprise, surprise) and
the nl2br function (wow) later on. Of course these days it's easier to
call file_get_contents($filename) and apply nl2br on its return value.
- Tul
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Newbie: can I store flash file into Mysql DB
technically can I store flash file into Mysql DB using PHP? what point should I pay attention for that? Thank you -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Newbie%3A-can-I-store-flash-file-into-Mysql-DB-tp20224150p20224150.html Sent from the PHP - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Newbie: can I store flash file into Mysql DB
On 29 Oct 2008, at 10:20, vuthecuong wrote: technically can I store flash file into Mysql DB using PHP? Yes. what point should I pay attention for that? The blob field type. But I would recommend against it. Why not store the files on disk and only store the filenames in the DB? -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Newbie: can I store flash file into Mysql DB
Stut wrote: On 29 Oct 2008, at 10:20, vuthecuong wrote: technically can I store flash file into Mysql DB using PHP? Yes. what point should I pay attention for that? The blob field type. But I would recommend against it. Why not store the files on disk and only store the filenames in the DB? -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php Thanks for fast reply. Could you tell me the reason against it? regards, -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Newbie%3A-can-I-store-flash-file-into-Mysql-DB-tp20224150p20224340.html Sent from the PHP - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Newbie: can I store flash file into Mysql DB
On 29 Oct 2008, at 10:32, vuthecuong wrote: Stut wrote: On 29 Oct 2008, at 10:20, vuthecuong wrote: technically can I store flash file into Mysql DB using PHP? Yes. what point should I pay attention for that? The blob field type. But I would recommend against it. Why not store the files on disk and only store the filenames in the DB? Thanks for fast reply. Could you tell me the reason against it? In my experience it's a lot harder to manage than files. DB backups and restores start taking a long time - not good when disaster strikes and you need to get back up and running quickly. Scripts that serve blobs can take up a lot of memory since they need to load the entire blob before outputting it to the browser whereas files can be streamed. Google for something like store files in mysql and you'll find a lot of opinion on the advantages and disadvantages. If the files are small enough and there aren't many then it can work well, but personally I'd never do it again after some nasty experiences a few years back. -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Newbie: can I store flash file into Mysql DB
Stut wrote: On 29 Oct 2008, at 10:32, vuthecuong wrote: Stut wrote: On 29 Oct 2008, at 10:20, vuthecuong wrote: technically can I store flash file into Mysql DB using PHP? Yes. what point should I pay attention for that? The blob field type. But I would recommend against it. Why not store the files on disk and only store the filenames in the DB? Thanks for fast reply. Could you tell me the reason against it? In my experience it's a lot harder to manage than files. DB backups and restores start taking a long time - not good when disaster strikes and you need to get back up and running quickly. Scripts that serve blobs can take up a lot of memory since they need to load the entire blob before outputting it to the browser whereas files can be streamed. Google for something like store files in mysql and you'll find a lot of opinion on the advantages and disadvantages. If the files are small enough and there aren't many then it can work well, but personally I'd never do it again after some nasty experiences a few years back. -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php THanks Stut, I learned from you a lot. I'll take that into account. regards -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Newbie%3A-can-I-store-flash-file-into-Mysql-DB-tp20224150p20224881.html Sent from the PHP - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Mailing lists
Hi, Anyone know of a good (as opposed to a bad) mailing list manager, other than freelists.org (which I can't seem to get working). Thanks. -- Richard Heyes HTML5 Graphing for FF, Chrome, Opera and Safari: http://www.rgraph.org (Updated October 25th) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Mailing lists
2008/10/29 Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Anyone know of a good (as opposed to a bad) mailing list manager, other than freelists.org (which I can't seem to get working). Thanks. Gmail! -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת ä-ö-ü-ß-Ä-Ö-Ü
Re: [PHP] Mailing lists
Dotan Cohen wrote .. 2008/10/29 Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Anyone know of a good (as opposed to a bad) mailing list manager, other than freelists.org (which I can't seem to get working). Thanks. Gmail! ?!? that's ajoke, right? i pledge loyalty for gnus mailman http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/index.html cheers bb -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Newbie: can I store flash file into Mysql DB
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:20 AM, vuthecuong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: technically can I store flash file into Mysql DB using PHP? what point should I pay attention for that? Thank you -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Newbie%3A-can-I-store-flash-file-into-Mysql-DB-tp20224150p20224150.html Sent from the PHP - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php We used to do that here, and there was significant performance impact after the database got to be about 12Gb, with minor impact showing after only a few Gb. I ended up having to write a script that stripped all the data from the Db into the file system. -- Bastien Cat, the other other white meat
Re: [PHP] Waste of storage space?
Thank you for your respons. I have thought of such a sorting mechanism too. But on the other hand, the biggest drawback would be that even minor changes that might be really important could get lost. And my goal is to really keep track on everything my users do. And, in the long run, the problem with the database that eventually could/will grow very large in size, is not solved. //frank ..please keep responses on list. I think you need to look at a lifetime value of the text element. Do they age at all? suggesting that you could archive them off if they are not being used after a certain period of time. You can also isolate the text portion of this to one table and then consider things like partitioning the table for speed. We do something similar here and in one table we have +22 records taking up 112Mb of space. But we can archive off eveything that is 7 years and older And lets face it, on the issue of size, disk space is cheap. -- Bastien Cat, the other other white meat
Re: [PHP] Regex validation
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:57 PM, VamVan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SSO process: $_POST the Email Address and password Get Authenticated, Get the COOKIE ( Through Oracle IDM suite SOAP call) Decrypt the COOKIE ( Through Oracle Enterprise business suite SOAP call) and get the profile Info Thats what happens now. But there is a glitch in the decryption algorithm we currently have. And when we decrypt + or some thing else comes with funny characters and does not authenticate. So I need to restrict them for now. When the algorithm gets corrected then I will use standard RFC. Are they not base64 encoded? I have had issues in decrypting elements that were not base64 encoded as some characters would end up mimicing EOL or otherwise dropping data -- Bastien Cat, the other other white meat
Re: [PHP] Mailing lists
I agree. Mailman has everything you need from a mailing list and is the defacto standard. Besides, with it you only need to press 'reply' not 'Reply all' when trying to send to the list... unlike this one. Usually you would setup it up on a subdomain (e.g _lists.__domain.com_) and can then have multiple lists on that domain, such as [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc.. Michael Kubler *G*rey *P*hoenix *P*roductions http://www.greyphoenix.biz Bjoern Bartels wrote: Dotan Cohen wrote .. 2008/10/29 Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Anyone know of a good (as opposed to a bad) mailing list manager, other than freelists.org (which I can't seem to get working). Thanks. ?!? that's ajoke, right? i pledge loyalty for gnus mailman http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/index.html cheers bb
Re: [PHP] Mailing lists
Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Anyone know of a good (as opposed to a bad) mailing list manager, other than freelists.org (which I can't seem to get working). Thanks. What's wrong with Mailman? Wolf -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Waste of storage space?
Bastien Koert wrote: Thank you for your respons. I have thought of such a sorting mechanism too. But on the other hand, the biggest drawback would be that even minor changes that might be really important could get lost. And my goal is to really keep track on everything my users do. And, in the long run, the problem with the database that eventually could/will grow very large in size, is not solved. //frank ..please keep responses on list. I think you need to look at a lifetime value of the text element. Do they age at all? suggesting that you could archive them off if they are not being used after a certain period of time. You can also isolate the text portion of this to one table and then consider things like partitioning the table for speed. We do something similar here and in one table we have +22 records taking up 112Mb of space. But we can archive off eveything that is 7 years and older And lets face it, on the issue of size, disk space is cheap. Hi, Ok, disk space is cheap, but you can't avoid the access/seek time penalty on this. - Unomi -
Re: [PHP] Regex validation
When it comes to email validation, I would recommend using the IMAP function which will be both fast and correct: http://us.php.net/manual/en/function.imap-rfc822-parse-adrlist.php Otherwise, it's guaranteed that you are having at least some false positives, and probably some false negatives. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Waste of storage space?
Hi, Ok, disk space is cheap, but you can't avoid the access/seek time penalty on this. - Unomi - Properly indexed, its not that bad...after all its what Dbs do best -- Bastien Cat, the other other white meat
Re: [PHP] Regex validation
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When it comes to email validation, I would recommend using the IMAP function which will be both fast and correct: http://us.php.net/manual/en/function.imap-rfc822-parse-adrlist.php Otherwise, it's guaranteed that you are having at least some false positives, and probably some false negatives. Didn't know about those IMAP functions. And they even work in PHP4. Thanks for telling. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Mailing lists
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's wrong with Mailman? That's what I'd recommend, too. It's not PHP, but it's tried and true, tested over years and years, and probably in the millions or tens of millions of messages handled. -- /Daniel P. Brown http://www.parasane.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ask me about our current hosting/dedicated server deals! -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Waste of storage space?
Bastien Koert wrote: Hi, Ok, disk space is cheap, but you can't avoid the access/seek time penalty on this. - Unomi - Properly indexed, its not that bad...after all its what Dbs do best I only mention this, that while disk space seems a unlimited resource these days the fact that a DB gets it's bottleneck here is paramount. I suggest to look up articles about this on www.mysqlperformanceblog.com to find some hints and tips to avoid most of the issues with huge disk space and record access. And BTW, 'properly indexed' is mostly easier said than done. - Unomi -
Re: [PHP] create/write to psd file
Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 07:55 +0100, Martin Zvarík wrote: What I know is that you can control GIMP over the command line = you can use PHP to do this. Though I guess GIMP doesn't support PSD files, I had to express myself anyways. vuthecuong napsal(a): Hi all Is there a way to create/read/write to psd file? (photoshop format) I would like to hear opinion form you: Do you recommend gd2 or imageMagick to perform this task? and why thanks in advanced The Gimp does support PSD files, but it has real trouble with the layer effects that CS introduced. Also, the Gimp cannot natively handle CMYK images. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk And off the top of my head, I don't think it supports 24bit images either, which can be another killer if you want to handle images from CS. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] create/write to psd file
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 15:22 +, David Lidstone wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 07:55 +0100, Martin Zvarík wrote: What I know is that you can control GIMP over the command line = you can use PHP to do this. Though I guess GIMP doesn't support PSD files, I had to express myself anyways. vuthecuong napsal(a): Hi all Is there a way to create/read/write to psd file? (photoshop format) I would like to hear opinion form you: Do you recommend gd2 or imageMagick to perform this task? and why thanks in advanced The Gimp does support PSD files, but it has real trouble with the layer effects that CS introduced. Also, the Gimp cannot natively handle CMYK images. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk And off the top of my head, I don't think it supports 24bit images either, which can be another killer if you want to handle images from CS. I thought 24-bit meant CMYK; 8 bits each for Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black. I know the Gimp can handle PNG graphics which are 24-bit though; Red, Green, Blue and an Alpha channel. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] General Mysql Connect
I sent an email to the mysql list, but it reminded me of a question I had for people structuring their PHP code. What's the general way that people structure their connections? Right now, I spawn off two mysql_connect calls at the top of the file that includes my database calls, using true for the fourth parameters, so as to create two new connections. Then I use those two connections for two different databases I have to query from. Is it better just to use mysql_select_db within the query function every time for the same connection? Should I use mysql_connect every time without using true, so as to re-use connections. Should I be using pconnect instead? I spent some time looking for answers to these questions, but am getting conflicting answers. Some people think relying on the re-use of these functions is good, some think that explicit management is better. In general, how have people on the list found them? For example, is having constant mysql_select_db calls a problem? Thanks, Waynn On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Waynn Lue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've started seeing mysql errors in the logs, and when i look at the output of mysql_error() (in php), i get lost connection to mysql server during query. Here's an example stack trace: 'Can't connect to name database [Lost connection to MySQL server during query]' Similarly, we're seeing stack traces here as well: 'Can't connect to name database []' I usually only see this mesasge when I don't use a connection for awhile and it timeouts, but in this case, the connection is only opened for the duration of a script, which can't be running for more than a second. The mysql error logs don't show anything, and wait_timeout is set to 28800. At first, I thought it was because I was calling mysql_select_db too much, so I ended up using two mysql connections per page load, but that didn't seem to change anything. How can we prevent this error from happening, what else can I do to diagnose this further? Google brings up some more discussions about it, but nothing seems related to this, like packetsize. This is happening when we select two ids from a database. And SHOW PROCESSLIST shows that the number of connections aren't even coming close to max connections. Thanks for any advice, Waynn
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
Waynn Lue wrote: I sent an email to the mysql list, but it reminded me of a question I had for people structuring their PHP code. What's the general way that people structure their connections? Right now, I spawn off two mysql_connect calls at the top of the file that includes my database calls, using true for the fourth parameters, so as to create two new connections. Then I use those two connections for two different databases I have to query from. Is it better just to use mysql_select_db within the query function every time for the same connection? Should I use mysql_connect every time without using true, so as to re-use connections. Should I be using pconnect instead? I spent some time looking for answers to these questions, but am getting conflicting answers. Some people think relying on the re-use of these functions is good, some think that explicit management is better. In general, how have people on the list found them? For example, is having constant mysql_select_db calls a problem? Are they connecting as the same user and on the same server? Then you can replace with a mysql_select_db call. If they aren't both of those, you have no choice. No idea if it'll make much of a difference (performance wise etc) but I'd leave it as two connections. -- Postgresql php tutorials http://www.designmagick.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 08:55 +1100, Chris wrote: Waynn Lue wrote: I sent an email to the mysql list, but it reminded me of a question I had for people structuring their PHP code. What's the general way that people structure their connections? Right now, I spawn off two mysql_connect calls at the top of the file that includes my database calls, using true for the fourth parameters, so as to create two new connections. Then I use those two connections for two different databases I have to query from. Is it better just to use mysql_select_db within the query function every time for the same connection? Should I use mysql_connect every time without using true, so as to re-use connections. Should I be using pconnect instead? I spent some time looking for answers to these questions, but am getting conflicting answers. Some people think relying on the re-use of these functions is good, some think that explicit management is better. In general, how have people on the list found them? For example, is having constant mysql_select_db calls a problem? Are they connecting as the same user and on the same server? Then you can replace with a mysql_select_db call. If they aren't both of those, you have no choice. No idea if it'll make much of a difference (performance wise etc) but I'd leave it as two connections. -- Postgresql php tutorials http://www.designmagick.com/ How difficult would it be to converge the 2 databases into one? This would obviously use less memory (not sure exactly how big the footprint of each connection is though) and will slightly speed up page display time (as you only have to wait for one connection to be made rather than two) Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: General Mysql Connect
Yeah, it's the same user, same everything (for now). But I wonder why we're seeing these lost connection errors and I'm trying to fix it--this was one of the things I was investigating. On 10/29/08, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Waynn Lue wrote: I sent an email to the mysql list, but it reminded me of a question I had for people structuring their PHP code. What's the general way that people structure their connections? Right now, I spawn off two mysql_connect calls at the top of the file that includes my database calls, using true for the fourth parameters, so as to create two new connections. Then I use those two connections for two different databases I have to query from. Is it better just to use mysql_select_db within the query function every time for the same connection? Should I use mysql_connect every time without using true, so as to re-use connections. Should I be using pconnect instead? I spent some time looking for answers to these questions, but am getting conflicting answers. Some people think relying on the re-use of these functions is good, some think that explicit management is better. In general, how have people on the list found them? For example, is having constant mysql_select_db calls a problem? Are they connecting as the same user and on the same server? Then you can replace with a mysql_select_db call. If they aren't both of those, you have no choice. No idea if it'll make much of a difference (performance wise etc) but I'd leave it as two connections. -- Postgresql php tutorials http://www.designmagick.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: General Mysql Connect
It's actually a deliberate design decision to have two dbs, because one's a shared database, and one's application specific. Thanks, Waynn On 10/29/08, Ashley Sheridan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 08:55 +1100, Chris wrote: Waynn Lue wrote: I sent an email to the mysql list, but it reminded me of a question I had for people structuring their PHP code. What's the general way that people structure their connections? Right now, I spawn off two mysql_connect calls at the top of the file that includes my database calls, using true for the fourth parameters, so as to create two new connections. Then I use those two connections for two different databases I have to query from. Is it better just to use mysql_select_db within the query function every time for the same connection? Should I use mysql_connect every time without using true, so as to re-use connections. Should I be using pconnect instead? I spent some time looking for answers to these questions, but am getting conflicting answers. Some people think relying on the re-use of these functions is good, some think that explicit management is better. In general, how have people on the list found them? For example, is having constant mysql_select_db calls a problem? Are they connecting as the same user and on the same server? Then you can replace with a mysql_select_db call. If they aren't both of those, you have no choice. No idea if it'll make much of a difference (performance wise etc) but I'd leave it as two connections. -- Postgresql php tutorials http://www.designmagick.com/ How difficult would it be to converge the 2 databases into one? This would obviously use less memory (not sure exactly how big the footprint of each connection is though) and will slightly speed up page display time (as you only have to wait for one connection to be made rather than two) Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: General Mysql Connect
Waynn Lue wrote:
Yeah, it's the same user, same everything (for now). But I wonder why
we're seeing these lost connection errors and I'm trying to fix
it--this was one of the things I was investigating.
Random guess :)
You're overwriting a result or connection variable?
$query = select * from db1.table1;
$result = mysql_query($query, $conn1);
while ($row = mysql_fetch_assoc($result)) {
...
$result = mysql_query(select * from db2.table2, $conn2);
}
--
Postgresql php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re[2]: Problem changing file encoding
Greetings, Nathan Rixham. In reply to Your message dated Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 20:54:22, made this a while back.. might help :) http://programphp.com/iconv.phps Sorta... would be wise to have results of this detector cached in some way to reduce startup times. But it's nice, very nice piece of code. -- Sincerely Yours, ANR Daemon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Bitwise operation giving wrong results
I have the following code as a test: ?php $a = $_GET['a']; $b = $_GET['b']; echo $a .. $b . = ; $out = $a $b; echo $out; //echo 15 2; ? if I set a to 15 and b to 2 in the URL like so: test.php?a=15b=2 it outputs zero as the answer. When I run the hard-coded '' operation (the commented out echo), it returns 2. I'm stumped. -- --Zootboy
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 08:55 +1100, Chris wrote: Waynn Lue wrote: I sent an email to the mysql list, but it reminded me of a question I had for people structuring their PHP code. What's the general way that people structure their connections? Right now, I spawn off two mysql_connect calls at the top of the file that includes my database calls, using true for the fourth parameters, so as to create two new connections. Then I use those two connections for two different databases I have to query from. Is it better just to use mysql_select_db within the query function every time for the same connection? Should I use mysql_connect every time without using true, so as to re-use connections. Should I be using pconnect instead? I spent some time looking for answers to these questions, but am getting conflicting answers. Some people think relying on the re-use of these functions is good, some think that explicit management is better. In general, how have people on the list found them? For example, is having constant mysql_select_db calls a problem? Are they connecting as the same user and on the same server? Then you can replace with a mysql_select_db call. If they aren't both of those, you have no choice. No idea if it'll make much of a difference (performance wise etc) but I'd leave it as two connections. -- Postgresql php tutorials http://www.designmagick.com/ How difficult would it be to converge the 2 databases into one? This would obviously use less memory (not sure exactly how big the footprint of each connection is though) and will slightly speed up page display time (as you only have to wait for one connection to be made rather than two) Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk Generally you want separation of data. MySQL doesn't have a problem accessing another DB on the same server with the same connection. Also, how would database convergence use less memory? . Thank you, Micah Gersten onShore Networks Internal Developer http://www.onshore.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bitwise operation giving wrong results
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 20:01 -0400, sean greenslade wrote: I have the following code as a test: ?php $a = $_GET['a']; $b = $_GET['b']; echo $a .. $b . = ; $out = $a $b; echo $out; //echo 15 2; ? if I set a to 15 and b to 2 in the URL like so: test.php?a=15b=2 it outputs zero as the answer. When I run the hard-coded '' operation (the commented out echo), it returns 2. I'm stumped. In PHP a boolean true also equates to 1. You are using the operator though, instead of the which I think you're looking for. They both do different things. Sorry, it's late and I've been befriending mr Jack Daniels a little tonight, so forgive me if my answer is as close to what you were looking for as is 42 (life the universe and everything) to The Question. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:25 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 08:55 +1100, Chris wrote: Waynn Lue wrote: I sent an email to the mysql list, but it reminded me of a question I had for people structuring their PHP code. What's the general way that people structure their connections? Right now, I spawn off two mysql_connect calls at the top of the file that includes my database calls, using true for the fourth parameters, so as to create two new connections. Then I use those two connections for two different databases I have to query from. Is it better just to use mysql_select_db within the query function every time for the same connection? Should I use mysql_connect every time without using true, so as to re-use connections. Should I be using pconnect instead? I spent some time looking for answers to these questions, but am getting conflicting answers. Some people think relying on the re-use of these functions is good, some think that explicit management is better. In general, how have people on the list found them? For example, is having constant mysql_select_db calls a problem? Are they connecting as the same user and on the same server? Then you can replace with a mysql_select_db call. If they aren't both of those, you have no choice. No idea if it'll make much of a difference (performance wise etc) but I'd leave it as two connections. -- Postgresql php tutorials http://www.designmagick.com/ How difficult would it be to converge the 2 databases into one? This would obviously use less memory (not sure exactly how big the footprint of each connection is though) and will slightly speed up page display time (as you only have to wait for one connection to be made rather than two) Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk Generally you want separation of data. MySQL doesn't have a problem accessing another DB on the same server with the same connection. Also, how would database convergence use less memory? . Thank you, Micah Gersten onShore Networks Internal Developer http://www.onshore.com For arguments sake, open 1000 database connections, all to different databases. Now tell me that each connection doesn't have a footprint. At the end of the day, whist it may seem fine for a script to have 2 connections open, the least open the better. Imagine 100 users simultaneously accessing a page that opens 10 connections. Suddenly you have 200 connections open, not a great idea. If you could amalgamate the db's, you'd have half as many connections open. If you're still having trouble understanding why having two database connections open is bad (regardless of whether they are on the same server or not) the I think web development is the wrong career for you. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:25 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 08:55 +1100, Chris wrote: Waynn Lue wrote: I sent an email to the mysql list, but it reminded me of a question I had for people structuring their PHP code. What's the general way that people structure their connections? Right now, I spawn off two mysql_connect calls at the top of the file that includes my database calls, using true for the fourth parameters, so as to create two new connections. Then I use those two connections for two different databases I have to query from. Is it better just to use mysql_select_db within the query function every time for the same connection? Should I use mysql_connect every time without using true, so as to re-use connections. Should I be using pconnect instead? I spent some time looking for answers to these questions, but am getting conflicting answers. Some people think relying on the re-use of these functions is good, some think that explicit management is better. In general, how have people on the list found them? For example, is having constant mysql_select_db calls a problem? Are they connecting as the same user and on the same server? Then you can replace with a mysql_select_db call. If they aren't both of those, you have no choice. No idea if it'll make much of a difference (performance wise etc) but I'd leave it as two connections. How difficult would it be to converge the 2 databases into one? This would obviously use less memory (not sure exactly how big the footprint of each connection is though) and will slightly speed up page display time (as you only have to wait for one connection to be made rather than two) Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk Generally you want separation of data. MySQL doesn't have a problem accessing another DB on the same server with the same connection. Also, how would database convergence use less memory? . Thank you, For arguments sake, open 1000 database connections, all to different databases. Now tell me that each connection doesn't have a footprint. At the end of the day, whist it may seem fine for a script to have 2 connections open, the least open the better. Imagine 100 users simultaneously accessing a page that opens 10 connections. Suddenly you have 200 connections open, not a great idea. If you could amalgamate the db's, you'd have half as many connections open. If you're still having trouble understanding why having two database connections open is bad (regardless of whether they are on the same server or not) the I think web development is the wrong career for you. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk The answer in your case is not to combine the DBs necessarily, but consolidate the connections used. Like I said, you can use 2 MySQL DBs on the same connection in PHP. There's no reason to sacrifice separation of data. Thank you, Micah Gersten onShore Networks Internal Developer http://www.onshore.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Bitwise operation giving wrong results
Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 20:01 -0400, sean greenslade wrote: I have the following code as a test: ?php $a = $_GET['a']; $b = $_GET['b']; echo $a .. $b . = ; $out = $a $b; echo $out; //echo 15 2; ? if I set a to 15 and b to 2 in the URL like so: test.php?a=15b=2 it outputs zero as the answer. When I run the hard-coded '' operation (the commented out echo), it returns 2. I'm stumped. In PHP a boolean true also equates to 1. You are using the operator though, instead of the which I think you're looking for. You misunderstand the question I think. He's trying to do this: http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.operators.bitwise.php For the OP: Try casting $a and $b to int's: $a = (int)$_GET['a']; no idea if it'll help though. -- Postgresql php tutorials http://www.designmagick.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:43 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:25 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 08:55 +1100, Chris wrote: Waynn Lue wrote: I sent an email to the mysql list, but it reminded me of a question I had for people structuring their PHP code. What's the general way that people structure their connections? Right now, I spawn off two mysql_connect calls at the top of the file that includes my database calls, using true for the fourth parameters, so as to create two new connections. Then I use those two connections for two different databases I have to query from. Is it better just to use mysql_select_db within the query function every time for the same connection? Should I use mysql_connect every time without using true, so as to re-use connections. Should I be using pconnect instead? I spent some time looking for answers to these questions, but am getting conflicting answers. Some people think relying on the re-use of these functions is good, some think that explicit management is better. In general, how have people on the list found them? For example, is having constant mysql_select_db calls a problem? Are they connecting as the same user and on the same server? Then you can replace with a mysql_select_db call. If they aren't both of those, you have no choice. No idea if it'll make much of a difference (performance wise etc) but I'd leave it as two connections. How difficult would it be to converge the 2 databases into one? This would obviously use less memory (not sure exactly how big the footprint of each connection is though) and will slightly speed up page display time (as you only have to wait for one connection to be made rather than two) Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk Generally you want separation of data. MySQL doesn't have a problem accessing another DB on the same server with the same connection. Also, how would database convergence use less memory? . Thank you, For arguments sake, open 1000 database connections, all to different databases. Now tell me that each connection doesn't have a footprint. At the end of the day, whist it may seem fine for a script to have 2 connections open, the least open the better. Imagine 100 users simultaneously accessing a page that opens 10 connections. Suddenly you have 200 connections open, not a great idea. If you could amalgamate the db's, you'd have half as many connections open. If you're still having trouble understanding why having two database connections open is bad (regardless of whether they are on the same server or not) the I think web development is the wrong career for you. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk The answer in your case is not to combine the DBs necessarily, but consolidate the connections used. Like I said, you can use 2 MySQL DBs on the same connection in PHP. There's no reason to sacrifice separation of data. Thank you, Micah Gersten onShore Networks Internal Developer http://www.onshore.com I'm sure if you look at the OP codes on your suggestion, you'd still use the same memory as having two separate connections open, unless you closed one first. Thing is, opening and closing database connections has its own overheads. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:43 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:25 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 08:55 +1100, Chris wrote: Waynn Lue wrote: I sent an email to the mysql list, but it reminded me of a question I had for people structuring their PHP code. What's the general way that people structure their connections? Right now, I spawn off two mysql_connect calls at the top of the file that includes my database calls, using true for the fourth parameters, so as to create two new connections. Then I use those two connections for two different databases I have to query from. Is it better just to use mysql_select_db within the query function every time for the same connection? Should I use mysql_connect every time without using true, so as to re-use connections. Should I be using pconnect instead? I spent some time looking for answers to these questions, but am getting conflicting answers. Some people think relying on the re-use of these functions is good, some think that explicit management is better. In general, how have people on the list found them? For example, is having constant mysql_select_db calls a problem? Are they connecting as the same user and on the same server? Then you can replace with a mysql_select_db call. If they aren't both of those, you have no choice. No idea if it'll make much of a difference (performance wise etc) but I'd leave it as two connections. How difficult would it be to converge the 2 databases into one? This would obviously use less memory (not sure exactly how big the footprint of each connection is though) and will slightly speed up page display time (as you only have to wait for one connection to be made rather than two) Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk Generally you want separation of data. MySQL doesn't have a problem accessing another DB on the same server with the same connection. Also, how would database convergence use less memory? . Thank you, For arguments sake, open 1000 database connections, all to different databases. Now tell me that each connection doesn't have a footprint. At the end of the day, whist it may seem fine for a script to have 2 connections open, the least open the better. Imagine 100 users simultaneously accessing a page that opens 10 connections. Suddenly you have 200 connections open, not a great idea. If you could amalgamate the db's, you'd have half as many connections open. If you're still having trouble understanding why having two database connections open is bad (regardless of whether they are on the same server or not) the I think web development is the wrong career for you. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk The answer in your case is not to combine the DBs necessarily, but consolidate the connections used. Like I said, you can use 2 MySQL DBs on the same connection in PHP. There's no reason to sacrifice separation of data. Thank you, Micah Gersten I'm sure if you look at the OP codes on your suggestion, you'd still use the same memory as having two separate connections open, unless you closed one first. Thing is, opening and closing database connections has its own overheads. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk How is using one connection the same as having 2 open? You just change databases if you want to, or use the fully qualified table name (database.table) in your query. What extra overhead is there in that? Thank you, Micah Gersten onShore Networks Internal Developer http://www.onshore.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:49 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:43 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:25 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 08:55 +1100, Chris wrote: Waynn Lue wrote: I sent an email to the mysql list, but it reminded me of a question I had for people structuring their PHP code. What's the general way that people structure their connections? Right now, I spawn off two mysql_connect calls at the top of the file that includes my database calls, using true for the fourth parameters, so as to create two new connections. Then I use those two connections for two different databases I have to query from. Is it better just to use mysql_select_db within the query function every time for the same connection? Should I use mysql_connect every time without using true, so as to re-use connections. Should I be using pconnect instead? I spent some time looking for answers to these questions, but am getting conflicting answers. Some people think relying on the re-use of these functions is good, some think that explicit management is better. In general, how have people on the list found them? For example, is having constant mysql_select_db calls a problem? Are they connecting as the same user and on the same server? Then you can replace with a mysql_select_db call. If they aren't both of those, you have no choice. No idea if it'll make much of a difference (performance wise etc) but I'd leave it as two connections. How difficult would it be to converge the 2 databases into one? This would obviously use less memory (not sure exactly how big the footprint of each connection is though) and will slightly speed up page display time (as you only have to wait for one connection to be made rather than two) Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk Generally you want separation of data. MySQL doesn't have a problem accessing another DB on the same server with the same connection. Also, how would database convergence use less memory? . Thank you, For arguments sake, open 1000 database connections, all to different databases. Now tell me that each connection doesn't have a footprint. At the end of the day, whist it may seem fine for a script to have 2 connections open, the least open the better. Imagine 100 users simultaneously accessing a page that opens 10 connections. Suddenly you have 200 connections open, not a great idea. If you could amalgamate the db's, you'd have half as many connections open. If you're still having trouble understanding why having two database connections open is bad (regardless of whether they are on the same server or not) the I think web development is the wrong career for you. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk The answer in your case is not to combine the DBs necessarily, but consolidate the connections used. Like I said, you can use 2 MySQL DBs on the same connection in PHP. There's no reason to sacrifice separation of data. Thank you, Micah Gersten I'm sure if you look at the OP codes on your suggestion, you'd still use the same memory as having two separate connections open, unless you closed one first. Thing is, opening and closing database connections has its own overheads. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk How is using one connection the same as having 2 open? You just change databases if you want to, or use the fully qualified table name (database.table) in your query. What extra overhead is there in that? Thank you, Micah Gersten onShore Networks Internal Developer http://www.onshore.com Having one connection open at a time has only the overhead of the opening and closing of connections. As far as I know, you can't have two databases open on one connection, but please correct me if I am wrong. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:49 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:43 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:25 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 08:55 +1100, Chris wrote: Waynn Lue wrote: I sent an email to the mysql list, but it reminded me of a question I had for people structuring their PHP code. What's the general way that people structure their connections? Right now, I spawn off two mysql_connect calls at the top of the file that includes my database calls, using true for the fourth parameters, so as to create two new connections. Then I use those two connections for two different databases I have to query from. Is it better just to use mysql_select_db within the query function every time for the same connection? Should I use mysql_connect every time without using true, so as to re-use connections. Should I be using pconnect instead? I spent some time looking for answers to these questions, but am getting conflicting answers. Some people think relying on the re-use of these functions is good, some think that explicit management is better. In general, how have people on the list found them? For example, is having constant mysql_select_db calls a problem? Are they connecting as the same user and on the same server? Then you can replace with a mysql_select_db call. If they aren't both of those, you have no choice. No idea if it'll make much of a difference (performance wise etc) but I'd leave it as two connections. How difficult would it be to converge the 2 databases into one? This would obviously use less memory (not sure exactly how big the footprint of each connection is though) and will slightly speed up page display time (as you only have to wait for one connection to be made rather than two) Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk Generally you want separation of data. MySQL doesn't have a problem accessing another DB on the same server with the same connection. Also, how would database convergence use less memory? . Thank you, For arguments sake, open 1000 database connections, all to different databases. Now tell me that each connection doesn't have a footprint. At the end of the day, whist it may seem fine for a script to have 2 connections open, the least open the better. Imagine 100 users simultaneously accessing a page that opens 10 connections. Suddenly you have 200 connections open, not a great idea. If you could amalgamate the db's, you'd have half as many connections open. If you're still having trouble understanding why having two database connections open is bad (regardless of whether they are on the same server or not) the I think web development is the wrong career for you. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk The answer in your case is not to combine the DBs necessarily, but consolidate the connections used. Like I said, you can use 2 MySQL DBs on the same connection in PHP. There's no reason to sacrifice separation of data. Thank you, Micah Gersten I'm sure if you look at the OP codes on your suggestion, you'd still use the same memory as having two separate connections open, unless you closed one first. Thing is, opening and closing database connections has its own overheads. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk How is using one connection the same as having 2 open? You just change databases if you want to, or use the fully qualified table name (database.table) in your query. What extra overhead is there in that? Thank you, Micah Gersten Having one connection open at a time has only the overhead of the opening and closing of connections. As far as I know, you can't have two databases open on one connection, but please correct me if I am wrong. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk With MySQL, you can change the DB from query to query with mysql_select_db. The alternative as I stated in my last post is to use the fully qualified table name (database.table) in your query. MySQL doesn't care which DB you have open if you do that. In both of these cases, the same connection is used. Thank you, Micah Gersten onShore Networks Internal Developer http://www.onshore.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:57 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:49 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:43 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:25 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 08:55 +1100, Chris wrote: Waynn Lue wrote: I sent an email to the mysql list, but it reminded me of a question I had for people structuring their PHP code. What's the general way that people structure their connections? Right now, I spawn off two mysql_connect calls at the top of the file that includes my database calls, using true for the fourth parameters, so as to create two new connections. Then I use those two connections for two different databases I have to query from. Is it better just to use mysql_select_db within the query function every time for the same connection? Should I use mysql_connect every time without using true, so as to re-use connections. Should I be using pconnect instead? I spent some time looking for answers to these questions, but am getting conflicting answers. Some people think relying on the re-use of these functions is good, some think that explicit management is better. In general, how have people on the list found them? For example, is having constant mysql_select_db calls a problem? Are they connecting as the same user and on the same server? Then you can replace with a mysql_select_db call. If they aren't both of those, you have no choice. No idea if it'll make much of a difference (performance wise etc) but I'd leave it as two connections. How difficult would it be to converge the 2 databases into one? This would obviously use less memory (not sure exactly how big the footprint of each connection is though) and will slightly speed up page display time (as you only have to wait for one connection to be made rather than two) Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk Generally you want separation of data. MySQL doesn't have a problem accessing another DB on the same server with the same connection. Also, how would database convergence use less memory? . Thank you, For arguments sake, open 1000 database connections, all to different databases. Now tell me that each connection doesn't have a footprint. At the end of the day, whist it may seem fine for a script to have 2 connections open, the least open the better. Imagine 100 users simultaneously accessing a page that opens 10 connections. Suddenly you have 200 connections open, not a great idea. If you could amalgamate the db's, you'd have half as many connections open. If you're still having trouble understanding why having two database connections open is bad (regardless of whether they are on the same server or not) the I think web development is the wrong career for you. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk The answer in your case is not to combine the DBs necessarily, but consolidate the connections used. Like I said, you can use 2 MySQL DBs on the same connection in PHP. There's no reason to sacrifice separation of data. Thank you, Micah Gersten I'm sure if you look at the OP codes on your suggestion, you'd still use the same memory as having two separate connections open, unless you closed one first. Thing is, opening and closing database connections has its own overheads. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk How is using one connection the same as having 2 open? You just change databases if you want to, or use the fully qualified table name (database.table) in your query. What extra overhead is there in that? Thank you, Micah Gersten Having one connection open at a time has only the overhead of the opening and closing of connections. As far as I know, you can't have two databases open on one connection, but please correct me if I am wrong. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk With MySQL, you can change the DB from query to query with mysql_select_db. The alternative as I stated in my last post is to use the fully qualified table name (database.table) in your query. MySQL doesn't care which DB you have open if you do that. In both of these cases, the same connection is used. Thank you, Micah Gersten onShore Networks Internal Developer http://www.onshore.com And you can say for certain that there's no extra overhead involved?
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
With MySQL, you can change the DB from query to query with mysql_select_db. The alternative as I stated in my last post is to use the fully qualified table name (database.table) in your query. MySQL doesn't care which DB you have open if you do that. In both of these cases, the same connection is used. That brings me back to the original point, is there a performance decrease to continually calling mysql_select_db? And shouldn't connections that are being made during the processing of a php script (which runs for no more than two seconds) be lasting at least until the end of the script, instead of getting errors like Lost connection to server?
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
The answer in your case is not to combine the DBs necessarily, but consolidate the connections used. Like I said, you can use 2 MySQL DBs on the same connection in PHP. There's no reason to sacrifice separation of data. Forgot about this one until now.. mysql also supports the extended syntax: db.tablename.fieldname so that'd save switching db's too. Of course that depends on the same user having access to both db's, but that's the same as doing a select_db anyway. -- Postgresql php tutorials http://www.designmagick.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:57 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:49 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:43 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 19:25 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 08:55 +1100, Chris wrote: Waynn Lue wrote: I sent an email to the mysql list, but it reminded me of a question I had for people structuring their PHP code. What's the general way that people structure their connections? Right now, I spawn off two mysql_connect calls at the top of the file that includes my database calls, using true for the fourth parameters, so as to create two new connections. Then I use those two connections for two different databases I have to query from. Is it better just to use mysql_select_db within the query function every time for the same connection? Should I use mysql_connect every time without using true, so as to re-use connections. Should I be using pconnect instead? I spent some time looking for answers to these questions, but am getting conflicting answers. Some people think relying on the re-use of these functions is good, some think that explicit management is better. In general, how have people on the list found them? For example, is having constant mysql_select_db calls a problem? Are they connecting as the same user and on the same server? Then you can replace with a mysql_select_db call. If they aren't both of those, you have no choice. No idea if it'll make much of a difference (performance wise etc) but I'd leave it as two connections. How difficult would it be to converge the 2 databases into one? This would obviously use less memory (not sure exactly how big the footprint of each connection is though) and will slightly speed up page display time (as you only have to wait for one connection to be made rather than two) Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk Generally you want separation of data. MySQL doesn't have a problem accessing another DB on the same server with the same connection. Also, how would database convergence use less memory? . Thank you, For arguments sake, open 1000 database connections, all to different databases. Now tell me that each connection doesn't have a footprint. At the end of the day, whist it may seem fine for a script to have 2 connections open, the least open the better. Imagine 100 users simultaneously accessing a page that opens 10 connections. Suddenly you have 200 connections open, not a great idea. If you could amalgamate the db's, you'd have half as many connections open. If you're still having trouble understanding why having two database connections open is bad (regardless of whether they are on the same server or not) the I think web development is the wrong career for you. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk The answer in your case is not to combine the DBs necessarily, but consolidate the connections used. Like I said, you can use 2 MySQL DBs on the same connection in PHP. There's no reason to sacrifice separation of data. Thank you, Micah Gersten I'm sure if you look at the OP codes on your suggestion, you'd still use the same memory as having two separate connections open, unless you closed one first. Thing is, opening and closing database connections has its own overheads. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk How is using one connection the same as having 2 open? You just change databases if you want to, or use the fully qualified table name (database.table) in your query. What extra overhead is there in that? Thank you, Micah Gersten Having one connection open at a time has only the overhead of the opening and closing of connections. As far as I know, you can't have two databases open on one connection, but please correct me if I am wrong. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk With MySQL, you can change the DB from query to query with mysql_select_db. The alternative as I stated in my last post is to use the fully qualified table name (database.table) in your query. MySQL doesn't care which DB you have open if you do that. In both of these cases, the same connection is used. Thank you,
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
Waynn Lue wrote: With MySQL, you can change the DB from query to query with mysql_select_db. The alternative as I stated in my last post is to use the fully qualified table name (database.table) in your query. MySQL doesn't care which DB you have open if you do that. In both of these cases, the same connection is used. That brings me back to the original point, is there a performance decrease to continually calling mysql_select_db? And shouldn't connections that are being made during the processing of a php script (which runs for no more than two seconds) be lasting at least until the end of the script, instead of getting errors like Lost connection to server? The only overhead of constantly using mysql_select_db is 2 function calls to make a query instead of just using the database name in the query. However, this should not be that expensive. Yes, connections should be available for the whole script if you don't destroy them. Thank you, Micah Gersten onShore Networks Internal Developer http://www.onshore.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 20:12 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Waynn Lue wrote: With MySQL, you can change the DB from query to query with mysql_select_db. The alternative as I stated in my last post is to use the fully qualified table name (database.table) in your query. MySQL doesn't care which DB you have open if you do that. In both of these cases, the same connection is used. That brings me back to the original point, is there a performance decrease to continually calling mysql_select_db? And shouldn't connections that are being made during the processing of a php script (which runs for no more than two seconds) be lasting at least until the end of the script, instead of getting errors like Lost connection to server? The only overhead of constantly using mysql_select_db is 2 function calls to make a query instead of just using the database name in the query. However, this should not be that expensive. Yes, connections should be available for the whole script if you don't destroy them. Thank you, Micah Gersten onShore Networks Internal Developer http://www.onshore.com I'm just thinking about how other languages work with regards to databases. I'm pretty sure that opening extra database connections, regardless of whether they are on the same server or not, you will incur extra opcodes. ColdFusion does it with MSSQL, and I'm guessing that PHP on Windows using MSSQL or MySQL is going to be fairly the same. Linux could be different, but why would the developers of the connection driver write totally different code for both OS's? Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] General Mysql Connect
Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 20:12 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: Waynn Lue wrote: With MySQL, you can change the DB from query to query with mysql_select_db. The alternative as I stated in my last post is to use the fully qualified table name (database.table) in your query. MySQL doesn't care which DB you have open if you do that. In both of these cases, the same connection is used. That brings me back to the original point, is there a performance decrease to continually calling mysql_select_db? And shouldn't connections that are being made during the processing of a php script (which runs for no more than two seconds) be lasting at least until the end of the script, instead of getting errors like Lost connection to server? The only overhead of constantly using mysql_select_db is 2 function calls to make a query instead of just using the database name in the query. However, this should not be that expensive. Yes, connections should be available for the whole script if you don't destroy them. Thank you, Micah Gersten I'm just thinking about how other languages work with regards to databases. I'm pretty sure that opening extra database connections, regardless of whether they are on the same server or not, you will incur extra opcodes. ColdFusion does it with MSSQL, and I'm guessing that PHP on Windows using MSSQL or MySQL is going to be fairly the same. Linux could be different, but why would the developers of the connection driver write totally different code for both OS's? Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk With MySQL, you don't need a new DB connection to use a second DB. I think that's the problem your having Thank you, Micah Gersten onShore Networks Internal Developer http://www.onshore.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Newbie: can I store flash file into Mysql DB
Bastien Koert a écrit : We used to do that here, and there was significant performance impact after the database got to be about 12Gb, with minor impact showing after only a few Gb. I ended up having to write a script that stripped all the data from the Db into the file system. What engine did you run ? With innodb, blobs are stored in separate files, so it doesn't impact the engine performances (they are other problems, like file caching not available). -- Mickaël Wolff aka Lupus Michaelis http://lupusmic.org -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: General Mysql Connect
Waynn Lue wrote:
Yeah, it's the same user, same everything (for now). But I wonder why
we're seeing these lost connection errors and I'm trying to fix
it--this was one of the things I was investigating.
Random guess :)
You're overwriting a result or connection variable?
$query = select * from db1.table1;
$result = mysql_query($query, $conn1);
while ($row = mysql_fetch_assoc($result)) {
...
$result = mysql_query(select * from db2.table2, $conn2);
}
It's possible, but seems unlikely because the problem only comes up
periodically, not deterministically.
Re: [PHP] Re: General Mysql Connect
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 18:32 -0700, Waynn Lue wrote:
Waynn Lue wrote:
Yeah, it's the same user, same everything (for now). But I wonder why
we're seeing these lost connection errors and I'm trying to fix
it--this was one of the things I was investigating.
Random guess :)
You're overwriting a result or connection variable?
$query = select * from db1.table1;
$result = mysql_query($query, $conn1);
while ($row = mysql_fetch_assoc($result)) {
...
$result = mysql_query(select * from db2.table2, $conn2);
}
It's possible, but seems unlikely because the problem only comes up
periodically, not deterministically.
Here's the answer you want:
Switching database over the same connection is MUCH cheaper than opening
a brand new connection each time. HOWEVER, if you are constantly
switching between the databases within the same request, then it is more
efficient to open two connections. WHY? Because it costs you a network
(or socket) query every time you switch databases. This is cheaper than
opening a new connection, but over time if you continuously switch
within the same request, it will be more expensive than opening a new
connection. Most likely, from what I've read, it is cheaper for you to
switch over the same connection. Now, someone else mentioned that in
MySQL you can do select foo from db2.table where blah blah blah. This is
the fastest since no extra query needs to go out. However, and this may
or may not matter, I think it is less portable.
Sooo.
?php
$db1 = new Connection( 'db1' );
$db2 = new Connection( 'db2' );
for( $i = 0; $i 100; $++ )
{
$db1-query();
$db2-query();
}
?
2 expensive opens, 2 million cheap queries.
And...
?php
$db = new Connection();
for( $i = 0; $i 100; $++ )
{
$db-selectDatabase( 'db1' );
$db-query();
$db-selectDatabase( 'db2' );
$db-query();
}
?
1 expensive open, 4 million cheap queries.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Newbie: can I store flash file into Mysql DB
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Lupus Michaelis [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bastien Koert a écrit : We used to do that here, and there was significant performance impact after the database got to be about 12Gb, with minor impact showing after only a few Gb. I ended up having to write a script that stripped all the data from the Db into the file system. What engine did you run ? With innodb, blobs are stored in separate files, so it doesn't impact the engine performances (they are other problems, like file caching not available). -- Mickaël Wolff aka Lupus Michaelis http://lupusmic.org -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php myISAM tables, done before my time there -- Bastien Cat, the other other white meat
