Hi!
I have recently encountered this text in which the author claims very
high MySQL speedups for simple queries
It is not that he speeds up simple queries (you'd notice that maybe if you used
infiniband, and even then it wouldn't matter much :)
He just avoided hitting some expensive
Hi!
A:
It's easy to get fast results if you don't care about your reads being
atomic (*), and I find it hard to believe they've managed to get
atomic reads without going through MySQL.
MySQL upper layers know nothing much about transactions, it is all
engine-specific - BEGIN and COMMIT
On 12/24/2010 10:01 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
I wonder if we have such CPU bottleneck, though.
No, not really. Our average (do note, this isn't median and is affected by
heavy queries more) DB response time is 1.3ms (measuring on the client).
This could also reduce memory usage by not using
Hi!
This could also reduce memory usage by not using memcached (as often)
which, I understand, is a bigger problem.
No it is not.
First of all, our memcached and database access times not that far away - 0.7
vs 1.3 ms (again, memcached is static response time, whereas database average
is
Hi,
-Original Message-
From: wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Domas Mituzas
Sent: 24 December 2010 09:09
To: Wikimedia developers
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Using MySQL as a NoSQL
Hi!
A:
It's easy to get
Hi!
It seems from my tinkering that MySQL query cache handling is
circumvented via HandlerSocket.
On busy systems (I assume we talk about busy systems, as discussion is about
HS) query cache is usually eliminated anyway.
Either by compiling it out, or by patching the code not to use qcache
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
A:
It's easy to get fast results if you don't care about your reads being
atomic (*), and I find it hard to believe they've managed to get
atomic reads without going through MySQL.
MySQL upper layers know
Domas Mituzas wrote:
It looks interesting. There are some places where mediawiki could take
that shortcut if available.
It wouldn't be a shortcut if you had to establish another database connection
besides existing one.
I was assuming usage of pfsockopen(), of course.
-Original Message-
From: wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Domas Mituzas
Sent: 24 December 2010 13:42
To: Wikimedia developers
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Using MySQL as a NoSQL
Hi!
It seems from my
-Original Message-
From: wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikitech-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Jared Williams
Sent: 24 December 2010 16:18
To: 'Wikimedia developers'
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Using MySQL as a NoSQL
-Original
Hi!
I was assuming usage of pfsockopen(), of course.
Though protocol is slightly cheaper, you still have to do TCP handshake :)
Domas
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
In the HISTORY file:
* glob() is horribly unreliable and doesn't work on some systems, including
free.fr shared hosting. No longer using it in Language::getLanguageNames()
-X!
On Dec 24, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
Glob works too I think.
-- brion
On Dec 23, 2010 12:06 PM,
The new host Dataset2 is now up and running and serving XML dumps. Those
of you paying attention to DNS entries should see the change within the
hour. We are not generating new dumps yet but expect to do so soon.
Ariel
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Hi,
That is great news, that you for all the hard work you have done on this and
most of all Seasons Greetings, Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year! :)
best regards,
Jamie
- Original Message -
From: Ariel T. Glenn ar...@wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, December 24, 2010 10:42 am
Subject:
14 matches
Mail list logo
