Hi,
If it possible to limit the max value of an auto increment field to say, ,
and how to do it? I am using MySQL 4.0.18.
Regards,
-- Wong
on 06/23/2004 12:14 AM, Joe Wong at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it possible to limit the max value of an auto increment field to say,
, and how to do it? I am using MySQL 4.0.18.
I am not sure, as a 'hack' you could simply insert a blank record with the
value set to ,, once
Hi,
Is there any idea of a release date for a MySQL 5.0.1
build that includes stored procedures on a per database
basis?
With regards,
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL MS SQL
Server.
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
--
MySQL General
Shawn,
I uncovered a problem this morning. I wonder if you (or anyone else) can
help me out again?
mysql select * from url_visit where url_scheme_ID=3 limit 10;
+-+---+---+-+---+--+
| urlid | url_scheme_ID | url_server_ID | url_path_ID |
Scott Haneda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 06/23/2004 12:14 AM, Joe Wong at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it possible to limit the max value of an auto increment field to say,
, and how to do it? I am using MySQL 4.0.18.
No. The maximum value for the auto_increment column can be
web tur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have mysql database on the web server. Is there any
way to see mysql actions from any log? I want to see
what my visitors did on the sql databases.
You can turn on general query log:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Query_log.html
--
For
Hi, I am going to setup mysql clustering, anybody knows...
Which distribution of Linux is best for clustering test? I mean easy to
setup and stable to use.
Usually I prefer RedHat product, is Fedora a good platform?
Thanks,
Joseph
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives:
Hi Egor,
Thanks for your reply. In addition to this, how I can make MySQL to reuse
the number which has been deleted? I tried to do a test as follow
1. Create a dummy table with a auto increment field 'UID' set to MED INT
2. Manually insert a record that set UID to Max of MED INT, ie 16777215
Hi,
I have a database column (VARCHAR) consisting of the following kind of
data:
1
1.1
1.2.1.2
1.10.1
1.2
1.4.1
I need to sort this colum so that the result will be
1
1.1
1.2
1.2.1.2
1.4.1
1.10.1
I was hoping that just using ORDER BY [column] ASC would work, but alas,
it only works for number
SQL
Hi, All!
This is configure scrypt haw I have compiled mysql 4.1.2
./configure \
--prefix=/usr/local/mysql_4 \
--without-debug \
--with-charset=koi8r \
--with-collation=koi8r_general_ci \
--with-extra-charset=koi8u,cp1251 \
--with-mysqld-user=mysql \
--without-berkeley-db \
--without-isam \
I got the following result when I tried to display strings with
hex expression.
x'B4C1BBFA' OK
X'B4C1BBFA' OK
0xB4C1BBFA OK
0XB4C1BBFA Error
I was checking how MySQL treats upper- and lower-case 'x'.
'0X' didn't work and I am wondering if this
Andrey, thanks for your report!
You're right, There was a bug that the client library didn't
take in account --with-charset and --with-collation configure
attributes.
This bug was fixed in 4.1.3 which is going to be released soon.
A temporary solution with 4.1.2 is to use SET NAMES koi8r
after
Hi list,
I have a problem concerning two tables. Basically, I need a strict
one on one join.
Simplyfied, the problem is as follows:
I need a check on two tables:
T1: containing four records, with the value of field id being 1, 2, 3, 4
T2, same structure, containing the records 1, 2, 3, 5
Thank you!
Just what I needed. 8-D I hope these template queries can help you to see
the patterns that evolve while using the GROUP BY with JOINed tables. You
can exclude any unwanted results from the GROUP BY phase of the query by
applying a set of HAVING restrictions. The HAVING clause works
Robert,
The original posting's project is cataloging the states from countries all
over the world not just the US. In this case, he needs a numeric ID as I
don't think the USPS keeps a list of state abbreviations for other
countries. Otherwise, I would agree with you. ;-)
Yours,
Shawn Green
J S,
Check to see if the url_scheme_ID part of a unique constraint/key or the
Primary Key? If it isn't, you will get dupes even if you use INSERT IGNORE
unless you pre-screen your INSERTs some other way to avoid duplication.
Yours,
Shawn Green
Database Administrator
Unimin Corporation - Spruce
You will have to use some criteria other than table position to delete just
the first match in table 1. The concept of first and last only apply
to ordered sets of data and there is _no_ guarantee that records entered
sequentially will be _stored_ sequentially in the actual data structure.
Are
Hi Shawn,
Here's the url_Schemes table (it's the same as the url_paths and
url_servers). This means url_scheme_ID is part of a unique constraint/key ?
mysql desc url_schemes;
++-+--+-+-++
| Field | Type| Null | Key | Default | Extra
No, url_scheme_ID has key type MUL, which means that that multiple
occurences of a given value are allowed within the field.
To prevent duplicate entries in url_visit, decide which combination of
columns should have no duplicates, then add a unique index on that combination.
Michael
J S wrote:
I can't tell from a DESCRIBE output. Please post the results of SHOW
CREATE TABLE url_visit;
Thanks!
Shawn Green
Database Administrator
Unimin Corporation - Spruce Pine
I am having trouble with a nightly backup of our MySQL database. Using the
mysqldump command, we dump our entire database to a backup directory. But
consistently the backup file contains only 33 of the 88 tables in the
database. The 33 getting backed up are the first 33 of the 88 as sorted
Sorry! I'm not that experienced with databases as you probably realised!
url_visit | CREATE TABLE `url_visit` (
`urlid` mediumint(9) NOT NULL auto_increment,
`url_scheme_ID` int(11) NOT NULL default '0',
`url_server_ID` int(11) NOT NULL default '0',
`url_path_ID` int(11) NOT NULL default '0',
Do this to prevent duplication on those three columns in the future:
ALTER TABLE url_visit DROP KEY `url_scheme_ID`, add UNIQUE KEY
(url_scheme_ID, url_server_ID, url_path_id);
The way I have composed that key (table-column order), it will force you to
include the url_scheme_ID if you want to
So, if I understand you correctly, somewhere in the middle of a 20,000 row
insert, a row gets inserted with auto_increment id = 87,123,456, say, then
the next row tries to insert with the value 87,123,457 but fails. You fix
this by skipping the next value with
ALTER TABLE yourtable
You might save some space if you compress() before storing. Depending on
file content I'm seeing 0-50% savings?
select length(load_file('c:/temp/SomeFile.pdf')) as old_size
,length(compress(load_file('c:/temp/SomeFile.pdf'))) as new_size
Ed
-Original Message-
From: Michael Stassen
I assume you are running this with cron. Do you get an error message from
cron? Do you have enough room on the destination disk for all 88 tables?
How big is the backup file?
For completeness, what is your OS, and what is your mysql version?
Michael
Danny Smitherman wrote:
I am having trouble
Hello,
Who can help?
About 2 weeks ago I downloaded the source of mysql-administrator-1.0.4_beta
and since then I am fighting with it.
I can not compile it on SuSE linux 9.1 (32 bit).
The reported problem from ./configure is that it can not find the package
gdk-2.0.pc.
This complaint is not
Does anyone know when INDEX DESC will be implemented?
I'm storing time values and want to access the data from the most recent
time value without sorting the result set.
Thanks!
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You might save some space if you compress() before storing. Depending on
file content I'm seeing 0-50% savings?
Good idea, but note that COMPRESS() and UNCOMPRESS() weren't introduced
until MySQL 4.1.1.
With earlier versions you may be able to compress and uncompress in
I am setting up an invision power board forum , and the installer requires mysql
info , (SQL database name , SQL user name, SQL Password) i am using apache for windows
, and i host mysql and php and apache on my computer , i dont know of any passwords, i
havnt enetered any passwords as far as
Dear colleagues..
I am new to mysql and I am trying to do the following, to create a php file
that may contain some kind of form or survey and the data entered may be
added to a database. Here's the code of the html form
-
html
head
titleSurvey/title
meta http-equiv=Content-Type
Hi Tommie,
From the HTML you have sent there are a number of things you need to do.
Firstly you need to group your radio buttons correctly and give them
appropriate values.
You will need to construct a table in MySQL to take the results.
You will need to create the relevant PHP script to
At 17:33 +0800 6/23/04, Joe Wong wrote:
Hi Egor,
Thanks for your reply. In addition to this, how I can make MySQL to reuse
the number which has been deleted? I tried to do a test as follow
AUTO_INCREMENT columns never automatically generate numbers that are
less that the maximum value currently
At 11:36 -0400 6/23/04, Alejandro Heyworth wrote:
Does anyone know when INDEX DESC will be implemented?
I'm storing time values and want to access the data from the most
recent time value without sorting the result set.
I don't see any relationship between your two sentences?
--
Paul DuBois,
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:36:52AM -0400, Alejandro Heyworth wrote:
Does anyone know when INDEX DESC will be implemented?
I'm storing time values and want to access the data from the most recent
time value without sorting the result set.
Why is sorting required at all? Indexes *are* sorted
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 03:32 pm, tommie ramirez.andujar wrote:
Dear colleagues..
I am new to mysql and I am trying to do the following, to create a php file
that may contain some kind of form or survey and the data entered may be
added to a database. Here's the code of the html form
I suspect he is refering to 3.23's inability to use an index on a ORDER
BY xxx DESC
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 11:36:52AM -0400, Alejandro Heyworth wrote:
Does anyone know when INDEX DESC will be implemented?
I'm storing time values and want to access the data from the most
Alejandro Heyworth wrote:
Does anyone know when INDEX DESC will be implemented?
I'm storing time values and want to access the data from the most
recent time value without sorting the result set.
Paul DuBois wrote:
I don't see any relationship between your two sentences?
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
Why
Which do you folks think is faster: randomly accessing a
table with a primary key and a dozen CHAR columns or a table
with a primary key and a single merged TEXT column? The data
in the 11 extra columns will always be fetched as a single
request.
I rolled my own benchmarking program and 10,000
In the last episode (Jun 23), Eamon Daly said:
Which do you folks think is faster: randomly accessing a table with a
primary key and a dozen CHAR columns or a table with a primary key
and a single merged TEXT column? The data in the 11 extra columns
will always be fetched as a single request.
I don't see any relationship between your two sentences?
Thanks for the responses.
I guess I was not clear enough in my last post.
You can define an index to sort values in a particular order... ASC is the
default.
DESC is an option, but it is not implemented yet. I want to know when it
will
Ole Kasper Olsen wrote:
Hi,
I have a database column (VARCHAR) consisting of the following kind of
data:
1
1.1
1.2.1.2
1.10.1
1.2
1.4.1
I need to sort this colum so that the result will be
1
1.1
1.2
1.2.1.2
1.4.1
1.10.1
I was hoping that just using ORDER BY [column] ASC would work, but
alas,
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:28:15PM -0500, gerald_clark wrote:
I suspect he is refering to 3.23's inability to use an index on a ORDER
BY xxx DESC
In other words ancient history :-)
Jeremy
--
Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
On Jun 23, 2004, at 8:15 AM, Michael Stassen wrote:
So, if I understand you correctly, somewhere in the middle of a 20,000
row insert, a row gets inserted with auto_increment id = 87,123,456,
say, then the next row tries to insert with the value 87,123,457 but
fails. You fix this by skipping
I seem to recall old versions of MySQL did re-use auto-increment values but
this was changed since it's not really supposed to do that ;-)
Cheers
Andrew.
- Original Message -
From: Paul DuBois [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Joe Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Egor Egorov [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL
Alejandro Heyworth wrote:
I don't see any relationship between your two sentences?
Thanks for the responses.
I guess I was not clear enough in my last post.
You can define an index to sort values in a particular order... ASC
is the default.
DESC is an option, but it is not implemented yet. I
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:28:15PM -0500, gerald_clark wrote:
I suspect he is refering to 3.23's inability to use an index on a ORDER
BY xxx DESC
In other words ancient history :-)
Not only that, but without ORDER BY, no order is assured.
Jeremy
--
MySQL General
Alejandro Heyworth wrote:
I don't see any relationship between your two sentences?
Thanks for the responses.
I guess I was not clear enough in my last post.
You can define an index to sort values in a particular order... ASC is
the default.
DESC is an option, but it is not implemented yet. I
Hey fellas,
I think he is trying to ask for the release date (if there is one) for the
clustering index to have the option be be a DESCENDING index. I hope he is
using InnoDB as that is the only table type that stores records in a
specific order.
In the short term - improving the ORDER BY ...
It sounds like the values you want to index our timestamps. If this is
the case you can do something tricky like using an integer column, and
storing -(unixtimesamp) values so that what mysql sees as ASC will
really be your data in DESC order. Of course there is some overhead
involved now in
Hi Michael,
- Original Message -
From: Michael Stassen
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: INDEX DESC
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
Why is sorting required at all? Indexes *are* sorted already.
I expect he's referring to mysql's poor performance when doing ORDER BY
Alejandro Heyworth wrote:
Currently, if I insert integer values into a table with an index ASC
(or DESC) on the INT column , a general SELECT will return the values
in ascending order.
1 2 3 4 5
That may be true, but only because you haven't been adding and deleting
records. It's not something
That could be. If so, it's a MySQL 3.23 limitation that was fixed in
MySQL 4.0.
So, what we are agreeing on is that MySQL 4.x does in fact support both
DESC and ASC indexes?
If this is the case and we're doing something wrong here, cool!
I definitely think the docs should reflect this
At 17:06 -0400 6/23/04, Alejandro Heyworth wrote:
That could be. If so, it's a MySQL 3.23 limitation that was fixed in
MySQL 4.0.
So, what we are agreeing on is that MySQL 4.x does in fact support
both DESC and ASC indexes?
No, what we're saying is that in 3.23, MySQL did not efficiently
I am new to MySQL but I hope that someone in this group can help out. I
am doing a research study on speeding up processing with database
The platform is a Pentium 4 2.66GHz Pc with 512MB of memory. Now I tried
increasing the memory to 2 Gigabytes but it did not seem to improve the
performance
Hi Gerald,
- Original Message -
From: gerald_clark
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: INDEX DESC
I suspect he is refering to 3.23's inability to use an index on a ORDER
BY xxx DESC
That's not always true. 3.23 WILL use the index for ORDER BY ... DESC in a
query like
At 16:09 -0400 6/23/04, Alejandro Heyworth wrote:
I don't see any relationship between your two sentences?
Thanks for the responses.
I guess I was not clear enough in my last post.
You can define an index to sort values in a particular order... ASC
is the default.
DESC is an option, but it is
At 15:30 -0400 6/23/04, Michael Stassen wrote:
Alejandro Heyworth wrote:
Does anyone know when INDEX DESC will be implemented?
I'm storing time values and want to access the data from the most
recent time value without sorting the result set.
Paul DuBois wrote:
I don't see any relationship
Matt W wrote:
Hi Michael,
- Original Message -
From: Michael Stassen
I expect he's referring to mysql's poor performance when doing ORDER BY
indexed_column DESC relative to ORDER BY indexed_column ASC.
The performance is only poor when using an index for DESC, *if the index is
PACKED*.
At 03:29 PM 6/23/04, Eamon Daly wrote:
Which do you folks think is faster: randomly accessing a
table with a primary key and a dozen CHAR columns or a table
with a primary key and a single merged TEXT column? The data
in the 11 extra columns will always be fetched as a single
request.
Both the
60 matches
Mail list logo
