Hi Brad,
> MySQL community edition 5.6.29, running Linux.
>
> Binlogs never seem to get caught up on slaves.
>
> I've done all I can, to validate that this isn't network or disk related.
>
> Disk tests (using iostat and other methods) show lots of bandwidth left on
> the slave and master.
>
>
Hi Jørn,
Found this after I found out what caused it:
https://www.percona.com/blog/2009/01/21/beware-ext3-and-sync-binlog-do-not-play-well-together/
I suspect that this also apply to ext4, or?
I would go more specific and say that sync_binlog=1 does not play well with
single-threaded
Hi Jørn,
- The data collector system processing jobs, is it multi threaded?
Sorry, forgot about that. No, it is not multi threaded. It is a PHP bases
system using several
script running sequently in an infinite loop. Each script taking care of part
of the job of
processing the data.
Hi Jørn,
Wagner’s point about SHOW ENGINE INNODB STATUS is a good one. A couple of
other questions about your workload:
- The data collector system processing jobs, is it multi threaded?
- Do you have a sample schema + set of queries we could look at?
(We pay close attention to regressions.)
Hi Satendra,
On Jul 14, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Satendra stdra...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there, I'm struggling to find the total time taken by a database query
on the disk? As I understand when a database query start execution it takes
some time inside the database engine some time to seek the result
Hi Jatin,
On Jun 2, 2014, at 7:56 AM, Jatin Davey jasho...@cisco.com wrote:
I found this blog while trying to find a fix for my problem. Thought it might
be useful to share.
Here it is:
http://whirlpool.net.au/blog/5
To confirm - did you manage to fix your problem?
I was about to
Hi Larry,
On May 14, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Larry Martell larry.mart...@gmail.com wrote:
We have a table with 254 columns in it. 80% of the time, a very small
subset of these columns are queried. The other columns are rarely, if
ever, queried. (But they could be at any time, so we do need to
Hi Christophe,
Considering the following simple query :
SELECT * FROM Status WHERE DWProcessed = 0 AND PreviousStatus NOT IN
('PENDING', 'ACCEPTED') AND SubscribeDate DATE_SUB(NOW(), INTERVAL 24
HOUR);
Which of these filters are processed first ?
I'd like the first filter
Reindl,
The order of the WHERE clause does not matter
that is simply not true
otherwise that documentation would not exist
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/multiple-column-indexes.html
Yes, the order of the columns in composite indexes *does matter*. This is a
different question
Hi Brad,
I'm trying to figure out how InnoDB executes a SHOW CREATE TABLE query so I
can figure out what could possibly have made them suddenly slow down?
mysql SHOW CREATE TABLE `my_table`;
...
1 row in set (37.48 sec)
We tend to execute many of these statements concurrently, but it's
Hi Brad,
That sounds right. Here's the process list (scrubbed) and the show engine
innodb status. Notice that all of the SHOW CREATE TABLE aren't for hte same
table, just got cleaned up that way.
It shouldn't matter if they are for the same or different - in 5.5 there is one
table open cache
Hi Brad,
We actually only have about 60 tables in that database. I've tried increasing
the cache and open tables limits and get the same behaviour.
Hmm.. Shawn’s guesses are probably better than mine then.
A few other tests I've tried:
1. Stand up a new machine, dump just the schema in
Hi Asma,
It looks from this error that there is an existing 5.1 installation present.
As well as RPM packages (which can be downloaded from
http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.6.html), there is also a yum repo for
Enterprise Linux 6.
It is available here:
Hi Jørn,
I would say that this sort of performance drop is not typical. Some
users have reported a smaller performance loss in single threaded
workloads in 5.6.
But dropping from an average of 1800 jobs per minute down to 300? I don't
think that should be expected.
I would agree with
Hi Zhigang,
On Feb 11, 2014, at 8:48 PM, Zhigang Zhang zzgang2...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to know the reason, in my opinion, to scan the smaller index data has
better performance than to scan the whole table data.
I think I understand the question - you are asking why MySQL will not index
Hi Érico,
mac:mysql-5.6.16-linux-glibc2.5-x86_64 ericomtx$ sudo
scripts/mysql_install_db --user=mysql
sh: ./bin/my_print_defaults: cannot execute binary file
FATAL ERROR: Neither host 'mac.local' nor 'localhost' could be looked up
with
./bin/resolveip
Please configure the 'hostname'
Hi Igor,
When MySQL 5.7 planned to be released as stable/production ready?
We do not provide planned release dates.
If I can recommend a video to watch about the release process, please watch
Tomas Ulin’s Percona Live keynote April 2013:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpHTV59I1gs
Watch from
Hi Anupam,
We
are keep on getting deadlock due to index locking, there is index on
FLAG, we can allow phantom read in session 1, we tried with READ
COMMITTED but still same, I think issue with next-key locking.
Did you try setting binlog-format=ROW as well?
I have a brief explanation of
Hi Jørn,
But I must say I'm not very impressed by the speed. I'm running a test on an
application that do a lot of reads and writes queries and the general
performance has dropped to 50% of the what I had in 5.5.20.
I would say that this sort of performance drop is not typical. Some
users
Ugh, that seems quite right. Now, why did they do that?
It was added for compatibility.
A separate specification is less convenient, and also less transparent.
Please click affects me on http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=47771
- Morgan
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives:
On 1/6/2014, 12:21 PM, h...@tbbs.net wrote:
Are INNODB foreign-key references ignored in 5.6?
You might be hitting:
Important
The inline REFERENCES specifications where the references are defined as
part of the column specification are silently ignored. MySQL only
accepts REFERENCES clauses
21 matches
Mail list logo
