Hello,
There must have been some changes in the default interpretation
respective to foreign key attributes
If I add explicitly 'not null' to the columns host_id and admin_id
in test_nkomp_admin, it works like intended:
create table test_nkomp_admin
(
host_id int unsigned not null,
admin
Some more testing performed and it seems like problem with foreign key
reference indexing, see below:
create table test_nkomp_admin2
(
host_id int unsigned,
admin_id varchar(15),
foreign key (host_id) references test_nkomp (host_id) on delete
cascade on update cascade
)engine=innodb;
crea
On 10/28/2010 03:34 PM, misiaQ wrote:
Works fine on 5.0.87 (rows returned as expected).
Confirmed on 5.1.51-log.
Most likely problem with VARCHAR behavior, because this one works fine:
select * from test_nkomp_admin where host_id=6 and trim(admin_id)='luke';
The thing with the varchar was also
Works fine on 5.0.87 (rows returned as expected).
Confirmed on 5.1.51-log.
Most likely problem with VARCHAR behavior, because this one works fine:
select * from test_nkomp_admin where host_id=6 and trim(admin_id)='luke';
Regards,
m
-Original Message-
From: gregor kling [mailto:gregor.kl
Does anyone have any sort of any idea on how to deal with this problem?
This is happening again and again and not all the time but randomly anytime.--Regards,Manasi Save
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 06:46:56 -0400, Manasi Save
wrote:
Dear Venugopal, Here's the Sample
Java Code Which Calls stored procedur
Dear Venugopal, Here's the Sample Java Code Which Calls
stored procedure :- //get the connection to databaseConnection dbConnection = getConnection(); //create the call
for procedureString procedureCallStmtStr = "Call XYZ()"; //create callable statement objectCallableStatement cs =
conn.prepareCal
Stored procedures are not executed like a query.
They are executed thru a Call { procedure} method.
Please check the same or let us know how you are executing the Query/Calling
the Procedure.
Regards,
VR Venugopal Rao
--- On Fri, 28/5/10, Manasi Save wrote:
From: Manasi Save
Subject: Stran
mysql Version :- 5.1.42-community-log
mysql Connector/J Version :- mysql-connector-java-5.1.6-bin.jar
Sample Java Code Which Calls stored procedure :-
//get the connection to database
Connection dbConnection = getConnection();
//create the call for procedure
String procedureCallStmtStr =
Hello Manasi,
If possible can you please send in the code that you mentioned (procedure or
trigger).
Please give a detailed technical explanation explaining the query which you
used from command line and the query used in the procedure. Please mention
the table structure, show table status and fe
2010/5/28 Manasi Save :
[...]
> Or am I doing something wrong?
probably;
you better send us another e-mail writing at least:
- mysql version you are using
- mysql Connector/J version you are using
- piece of java code you are using to call the stored procedure
- source of the stored procedure (or
Maybe it is because I am a programmer, but (unsigned) 0 - 1 = 4294967295.
What's the big deal?
Gleb Paharenko wrote:
Hello.
That seems like a bug:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=14543
Marko Domanovic wrote:
mysql 5.0.15-standard
UPDATE SET = -1
when the is 0 gives me
Hello.
That seems like a bug:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=14543
Marko Domanovic wrote:
> mysql 5.0.15-standard
> UPDATE SET = -1
> when the is 0 gives me 4294967295
> is integer(10) unsigned...
>
> maybe it would be more logical the expression to evaluate as 0, insted 2^3
mysql 5.0.15-standard
UPDATE SET = -1
when the is 0 gives me 4294967295
is integer(10) unsigned...
maybe it would be more logical the expression to evaluate as 0, insted 2^32
..
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.
I don't think that this behaviour is very surprising. If you carry out a
mathmaticical operation that returns a result outside the data type's range
then it _must_ give you an incorrect result. The only alternative would be to
throw an error.
I know that the manual documents that after an auto_
Hello.
On both 4.1.16 and 5.0.17 I've got the same results, however not 2^32,
but 18446744073709551615. 4.0 is deprecated and its results could be
different. Please provide exact SQL statement which you're using if you
still think that MySQL behaves weirdly with unsigned integers. In the
man
At 22:13 07.04.2005, Gleb Paharenko wrote:
Hello.
According to:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/show-processlist.html
the temporary result set was larger than tmp_table_size and the thread
is changing the temporary table from in-memory to disk-based format to
save memory. I suggest you to play
At 22:13 07.04.2005, Gleb Paharenko wrote:
Hello.
According to:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/show-processlist.html
the temporary result set was larger than tmp_table_size and the thread
But we get max. 10.000 long values in out result set.
is changing the temporary table from in-memory to di
Hello.
According to:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/show-processlist.html
the temporary result set was larger than tmp_table_size and the thread
is changing the temporary table from in-memory to disk-based format to
save memory. I suggest you to play with the value of this variable wh
At 16:59 06.04.2005, Gleb Paharenko wrote:
Hello.
Can you figure out in which state the queries from JBoss spend time the most?
You may use your own program and 'SHOW PROCESSLIST' statement or something
like:
mysqladmin -i 1 -r processlist.
I don't see a big difference between JBoss and a normal
At 16:59 06.04.2005, Gleb Paharenko wrote:
Hello.
Can you figure out in which state the queries from JBoss spend time the most?
no, cause
You may use your own program and 'SHOW PROCESSLIST' statement or something
like:
mysqladmin -i 1 -r processlist.
I get this:
id: 52401
user: omk-write
host: xx
Hello.
Can you figure out in which state the queries from JBoss spend time the most?
You may use your own program and 'SHOW PROCESSLIST' statement or something
like:
mysqladmin -i 1 -r processlist.
I don't see a big difference between JBoss and a normal Java
application except JBoss us
At 18:35 01.04.2005, Gleb Paharenko wrote:
Hello.
I don't have any ideas at least now. But additional information could be
helpful. Do you connect from JBoss to the slave or master server? Please use
We are conecting to the active mysql (normaly master).
SHOW PROCESSLIST to find in what state the s
Hello.
I don't have any ideas at least now. But additional information could be
helpful. Do you connect from JBoss to the slave or master server? Please use
SHOW PROCESSLIST to find in what state the server threads waste their time.
If you find something interesting send it. Include also the
Victoria and Robert
Thank you for your help. I think it is solved.
The error was (as Robert said) "ERROR 1005: Can't create table
'./alex/jmf33.frm' (errno: 150)"
I aslo checked "SHOW INNODB STATUS" where I was redirected to
http://www.innodb.com/ibman.html
There I found a link to a document sa
Also, suggest you read
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/InnoDB_foreign_key_constraints.html and in
particular look to see if you're getting error 1005 or 105 returned. That was the
purpose of my original question to you.
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Victoria Reznichenko [mailto:[EMAIL
Udbhav Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Victoria Reznichenko,
>
> Thanks for reply.
>
> Could you tell me from where I can get patch to fix
> this bug.
> or I have to use Mysql 4.0/Mysql 5.0
>
You can install latest available version, including the bugfix, from the development
source tr
"Terence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Will be fixed in 4.1.2?
Yes, it's fixed in 4.1.2.
>When can we expect that to be out? Anyone with an
> idea?
Soon. Probably in two weeks.
>
> - Original Message ---
--
For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita
This em
Will be fixed in 4.1.2? When can we expect that to be out? Anyone with an
idea?
(Also facing this problem here)
- Original Message -
From: "Victoria Reznichenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Strange
Udbhav Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Using Mysql 4.1.1-alpha release on RH9,
> I have used RPM provided on Mysql site to upgrade from
> 3.23 to 4.1.1
>
> I have a very strange behavior of mysql server,when I
> restart my server, it is not reading permission given
> to user at Table Level fr
Hi Diana,
> > SELECT IF(ISNULL(network.level), 4, network.level) AS level,
> > member.photo_level
> > FROM member
> > LEFT JOIN network ON (network.from_id=101 AND network.to_id=member.id)
> >
> > ORDER BY member.last_login DESC
> > LIMIT 0,3
> >
> > +---+-+
> > | level | phot
On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 09:07, Batara Kesuma wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can someone tell me why this query doesn't work?
>
> SELECT IF(ISNULL(network.level), 4, network.level) AS level,
> member.photo_level
> FROM member
> LEFT JOIN network ON (network.from_id=101 AND network.to_id=member.id)
> ORDER BY m
Batara Kesuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can someone tell me why this query doesn't work?
>
> SELECT IF(ISNULL(network.level), 4, network.level) AS level,
> member.photo_level
> FROM member
> LEFT JOIN network ON (network.from_id=101 AND network.to_id=member.id)
> ORDER BY member.last_logi
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 8:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Strange behavior on insert
I understand how to use the "Order By" clause on a select, I'm trying to
better understand why does this happen on the insert.
Jeff
>
IL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Strange behavior on insert
>
>
> On 20 Nov 2003 at 11:12, Jeff McKeon wrote:
>
> > However when I go to the database and do a "select * from
> tablename;"
> > the records are in the table in the reverse order!!
> >
&g
On 20 Nov 2003 at 11:12, Jeff McKeon wrote:
> However when I go to the database and do a "select * from tablename;"
> the records are in the table in the reverse order!!
>
> Even the auto increment is in reverse order...
>
If you wish to retrieve the data in a particular order you must use
"or
Sorry, I meant to say "I've tried the subquery", not
the substring, on 4.1, and that's probably what we'll
use in the future.
select date, value, type from A a1 where value =
(select max(a2.value) from A a2 where a1.type =
a2.type);
Ana
--- Ana Holzbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Ro
Hi Roger,
Thanks for the pointer.
CONCAT would be a nightmare to maintain, especially
with data where the values can have all sorts of
ranges, and where we could just as well be looking for
the value corresponding to the latest (or earliest)
date instead. It would just create too many cases
* Ana Holzbach
> Thanks for your reply. Here's the next step: I've
> added a date column to my table as follows:
>
> ++---+--++
> | id | value | type | date |
> ++---+--++
> | 1 | 6 | a| 2002-09-08 |
> | 2 | 2 | b| 2003-10-
Roger,
Thanks for your reply. Here's the next step: I've
added a date column to my table as follows:
++---+--++
| id | value | type | date |
++---+--++
| 1 | 6 | a| 2002-09-08 |
| 2 | 2 | b| 2003-10-01 |
| 3 | 5 | b
* Ana Holzbach
> I've tried this on MySQL 4.0.15 and 4.1.0-alpha, with
> the same result.
>
> I have the following table A:
>
> ++---+--+
> | id | value | type |
> ++---+--+
> | 1 | 6 | a|
> | 2 | 2 | b|
> | 3 | 5 | b|
> | 4 | 4 | a|
> |
AS RESULT ;
-Original Message-
From: Harald Fuchs [mailto:lists-mysql@;news.protecting.net]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 5:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Strange behavior of CASE .. WHEN ... THEN
In article <000701c27193$1bf2bfa0$aa3fe7cb@jsheo>,
"Heo, Jung
At 11:41 +0200 10/25/02, Harald Fuchs wrote:
In article <000701c27193$1bf2bfa0$aa3fe7cb@jsheo>,
"Heo, Jungsu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hello, every one.
I Found a bug about CASE .. WHEN .. THEN..
mysql> SELECT VERSION() ;
++
| VERSION() |
++
| 4.0.3-beta |
+
Hello.
On Mon 2002-10-21 at 18:42:05 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> > I think it's an error in MySQL. Why else this different
> > behaviour with and without unique index?
>
> IMHO it's different issue.
IMHO, it's the main issue. Adding or removing an index, even an unique
one may not ch
LeTortorec,
Tuesday, April 09, 2002, 12:17:06 AM, you wrote:
Leoen> I have a table with the following fields:
Leoen> id=autoincrement, int (11)
Leoen> ts_h=decimal
Leoen> ts_pid=int (11)
Leoen> ts_day=text
Leoen> There is a unique record where ts_pid=60 and ts_day="20020328000
it worked for me:
mysql> describe t_timesheet;
++---+--+-+-++
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
++---+--+-+-++
| id | int(11) | | PRI | NULL|
>I found a very strange behaviour of MySQL 3.23.xx with GROUP BY clause ...
>
>I have a Table:
>
>CREATE TABLE groupbyTEST (
>fldNAME varchar(20) NOT NULL,
>fldMONTH tinyint(4) DEFAULT '0' NOT NULL,
>fldSALARY decimal(10,0) DEFAULT '0' NOT NULL,
>fldDATE datetime DEFAULT '-00-0
46 matches
Mail list logo
