Search Results

Search found 20838 results on 834 pages for 'mysql num rows'.

Page 90/834 | < Previous Page | 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97  | Next Page >

  • Purpose of "computer" section in MySQL Cluster 7.2?

    - by dpk
    According to the cluster documentation, you can either define data nodes with: [ndbd] NodeId=n HostName=1.2.3.4 or [ndbd] NodeId=n ExecuteOnComputer=m [computer] Id=m HostName=1.2.3.4 I don't see a substantial difference between the two. The documentation has this to say: The [computer] section has no real significance other than serving as a way to avoid the need of defining host names for each node in the system. I'm stumped. If I have to define a hostname, what benefit is there to defining it in [computer] instead of [ndbd]?

    Read the article

  • Setting a time limit for a transaction in MySQL/InnoDB

    - by Trevor Burnham
    This sprang from this related question, where I wanted to know how to force two transactions to occur sequentially in a trivial case (where both are operating on only a single row). I got an answer—use SELECT ... FOR UPDATE as the first line of both transactions—but this leads to a problem: If the first transaction is never committed or rolled back, then the second transaction will be blocked indefinitely. The innodb_lock_wait_timeout variable sets the number of seconds after which the client trying to make the second transaction would be told "Sorry, try again"... but as far as I can tell, they'd be trying again until the next server reboot. So: Surely there must be a way to force a ROLLBACK if a transaction is taking forever? Must I resort to using a daemon to kill such transactions, and if so, what would such a daemon look like? If a connection is killed by wait_timeout or interactive_timeout mid-transaction, is the transaction rolled back? Is there a way to test this from the console? Clarification: innodb_lock_wait_timeout sets the number of seconds that a transaction will wait for a lock to be released before giving up; what I want is a way of forcing a lock to be released. Update: Here's a simple example that demonstrates why innodb_lock_wait_timeout is not sufficient to ensure that the second transaction is not blocked by the first: START TRANSACTION; SELECT SLEEP(55); COMMIT; With the default setting of innodb_lock_wait_timeout = 50, this transaction completes without errors after 55 seconds. And if you add an UPDATE before the SLEEP line, then initiate a second transaction from another client that tries to SELECT ... FOR UPDATE the same row, it's the second transaction that times out, not the one that fell asleep. What I'm looking for is a way to force an end to this transaction's restful slumber.

    Read the article

  • trouble backing up large mysql database

    - by Patrick
    I have a wordpress MU database with something like 10,000+ tables for various user's blogs. I need to upgrade wordpress MU to newest version, but want to backup the DB before hand. PHPMyAdmin fails to even load the page when i click export. Ive tried going into the server (windows) and using dos command line: mysqldump -u USERNAME -p PASSWORD> BACKUP.sql but it hangs for a minute and gives me the error: error 23: out of resources when opinging file '.\USERNAME\wp_1037_links.MYD' (Errorcode: 24) when using LOCK Tables What am i doing wrong, or should i be doing? Is PHPMyAdmin right for something this size? Is there a better way of doing this than the two methods i tried? **Note that this is not my site, so any suggestions as to the setup of the DB ill have to run by the owner. Im just here for WP related crap, this is kind of out of scope for what i was brought on to do.

    Read the article

  • Need help tuning Mysql and linux server

    - by Newtonx
    We have multi-user application (like MailChimp,Constant Contact) . Each of our customers has it's own contact's list (from 5 to 100.000 contacts). Everything is stored in one BIG database (currently 25G). Since we released our product we have the following data history. 5 years of data history : - users/customers (200+) - contacts (40 million records) - campaigns - campaign_deliveries (73.843.764 records) - campaign_queue ( 8 millions currently ) As we get more users and table records increase our system/web app is getting slower and slower . Some queries takes too long to execute . SCHEMA Table contacts --------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | +---------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | contact_id | int(10) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment | | client_id | int(10) unsigned | YES | | NULL | | | name | varchar(60) | YES | | NULL | | | mail | varchar(60) | YES | MUL | NULL | | | verified | int(1) | YES | | 0 | | | owner | int(10) unsigned | NO | MUL | 0 | | | date_created | date | YES | MUL | NULL | | | geolocation | varchar(100) | YES | | NULL | | | ip | varchar(20) | YES | MUL | NULL | | +---------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ Table campaign_deliveries +---------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | +---------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment | | newsletter_id | int(10) unsigned | NO | MUL | 0 | | | contact_id | int(10) unsigned | NO | MUL | 0 | | | sent_date | date | YES | MUL | NULL | | | sent_time | time | YES | MUL | NULL | | | smtp_server | varchar(20) | YES | | NULL | | | owner | int(5) | YES | MUL | NULL | | | ip | varchar(20) | YES | MUL | NULL | | +---------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ Table campaign_queue +---------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | +---------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | queue_id | int(10) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment | | newsletter_id | int(10) unsigned | NO | MUL | 0 | | | owner | int(10) unsigned | NO | MUL | 0 | | | date_to_send | date | YES | | NULL | | | contact_id | int(11) | NO | MUL | NULL | | | date_created | date | YES | | NULL | | +---------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ Slow queries LOG -------------------------------------------- Query_time: 350 Lock_time: 1 Rows_sent: 1 Rows_examined: 971004 SELECT COUNT(*) as total FROM contacts WHERE (contacts.owner = 70 AND contacts.verified = 1); Query_time: 235 Lock_time: 1 Rows_sent: 1 Rows_examined: 4455209 SELECT COUNT(*) as total FROM contacts WHERE (contacts.owner = 2); How can we optimize it ? Queries should take no more than 30 secs to execute? Can we optimize it and keep all data in one BIG database or should we change app's structure and set one single database to each user ? Thanks

    Read the article

  • What files to backup on Lighttpd+MySQL+PHP server

    - by Tomaszs
    I have a VPS with CentOS 5. I would like to create backup of: all my config files tweaks of database, php, server a databases cron settings website files installed applications and their settings (?) What files should i take into account? I don't want to miss any file that will be necessary to restore fast my webserver in case of any failure. And I don't want to create whole backup because entire VPS has like 30 GB of data.

    Read the article

  • Postfix : error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql

    - by flavio.troja
    I've a problem w/ postfix problem: # tail -f /var/log/mail.err Aug 20 17:57:50 myserver postfix/smtpd[8243]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 17:57:50 myserver postfix/smtpd[8243]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 17:58:05 myserver postfix/smtpd[8244]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 17:58:05 myserver postfix/smtpd[8244]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 18:00:38 myserver postfix/smtpd[8277]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 18:00:38 myserver postfix/smtpd[8277]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 18:03:32 myserver postfix/smtpd[8320]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 18:03:32 myserver postfix/smtpd[8320]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 18:03:33 myserver postfix/trivial-rewrite[8322]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql Aug 20 18:03:33 myserver postfix/trivial-rewrite[8322]: error: unsupported dictionary type: mysql idea?

    Read the article

  • Ways to go about optimizing website performance WordPress, Amazon EC2 Apache and RDS MySQL

    - by fuzzybee
    I have 6 WordPress websites running on 1 single EC2 instance. All the the websites are connecting to databases in 1 same RDS instance. Earlier today, traffic to the largest website peaked and the RDS instance went bottle-neck - CPU utilization was 100% for over an hour. It affected all of my websites as it took them all forever to load. In order to prevent such issue from happening again, which of the following will matter most so that I invest time and effort in first of all? (I will work on all later, I just need to prioritise now) To improve caching for all websites To fine-tune the database server To fine-tune my Apache server What will be the effect on user experience for my websites? Some quick searches show that I should limit number of concurrent connections to my web server but wouldn't that prevent users from accessing my websites? More background: My largest website has 140k visits and 660k page views a month. The other 5 websites should add up much less than that. I'm using a large EC2 instance as the web server I'm using a medium RDS instance as the database server What I've already done: Use W3 Total Cache plugin for caching for most the websites, especially the largest one (I can barely anything else in terms of caching I could do for the largest website) Am I using my resources wastefully or is there simply not enough resources for my websites - or rather, how do I answer that question myself?

    Read the article

  • Make a snapshot of a live mySQL database with myISAM & innoDB tables without locking

    - by Artem
    We have a live database in production where we are running out of space on the server. So I would like to transfer to a new server without any downtime (or as little downtime as possible). In general, I would also like to have a hot failover copy of the database available. I would like to use replication to get all of the data copied to the new machine, and then at some point flip a switch and have that new machine become the master (normal failover scenario). My problem is that I am not sure how to initialize replication without locking the db to make the initial snapshot I will use? Is there any way to do this? I know I could do it using single-transaction if I was using innoDB, but very unfortunately we have some myISAM tables in there (in fact the largest 150GB table is myISAM and I want to switch it to InnoDB but I can't do it until I have more space & a hot copy to switch to). Any ideas? Is there some way to make such a snapshot? Or is there alternatively a way to get replication to "catch up" without an snapshot for initialization?

    Read the article

  • MySQL 5.1 or 5.5?

    - by Miko
    Are there significant differences between versions 5.1 and 5.5? The server in question is used to host a medium-sized vBulletin forum. The main benefit of 5.1 is it's available through apt-get.

    Read the article

  • Can you rely on Nginx as your only webserver for php/mysql

    - by Saif Bechan
    Can you rely on Nginx to be your only webserver. I know in terms of performance it works well, but how does it do in terms of security. I know Apache is stable and has ModSecurity. This is not the case for Nginx. I am going to use Nginx as only webserver, and only for dynamic content. All my static content is delivered by a CDN.

    Read the article

  • MySQL Privileges required to GRANT EVENT, EXECUTE, LOCK TABLES, and TRIGGER

    - by Brad
    I have an account, user_a, and I would like to grant all available permissions on some_db to user_b. I have tried the following query: GRANT ALTER, ALTER ROUTINE, CREATE, CREATE ROUTINE, CREATE TEMPORARY TABLES, CREATE VIEW, DELETE, DROP, EVENT, EXECUTE, INDEX, INSERT, LOCK TABLES, REFERENCES, SELECT, SHOW VIEW, TRIGGER, UPDATE ON `some_db`.* TO 'user_b'@'%' WITH GRANT OPTION The result: Access denied for user 'user_a'@'%' to database 'some_db' Some experimentation has shown me that the only permissions my account (user_a) is unable to grant are EVENT, EXECUTE, LOCK TABLES, and TRIGGER. What privileges are required for my account to GRANT these privileges to another user? If I run SHOW GRANTS, I get this output: "GRANT SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, CREATE, DROP, REFERENCES, INDEX, ALTER, SHOW DATABASES, SUPER, CREATE TEMPORARY TABLES, REPLICATION SLAVE, REPLICATION CLIENT, CREATE VIEW, SHOW VIEW, CREATE ROUTINE, ALTER ROUTINE, CREATE USER ON *.* TO 'user_a'@'%' IDENTIFIED BY PASSWORD '1234567890abcdef' WITH GRANT OPTION" "GRANT SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, EXECUTE ON `some_other_unrelated_db`.* TO 'user_a'@'%'" "GRANT SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, CREATE, DROP, REFERENCES, INDEX, ALTER, CREATE TEMPORARY TABLES, LOCK TABLES, EXECUTE, CREATE ROUTINE, ALTER ROUTINE ON `another_unrelated_db`.* TO 'user_a'@'%' WITH GRANT OPTION"

    Read the article

  • MySQL too many connections

    - by Webnet
    On my server I have 7 databases. Our server has 512 MB of RAM which I'm getting upgraded this evening to 2GB and has a 2.4 single processor. I've gotten an error about the connection limit exceeded. With increasing my RAM, is it ok to increase the number of connections? Currently it's set to 200 but a single page may connect to 3-4 databases considering JOINs and things. We've setup so many databases for mere organization. We have a total of about 250-300 tables in all of the databases. Any advice would be appreciated :)

    Read the article

  • Backing up MySQL DB wtih mixture of innodb and myisam tables

    - by madphp
    I have a large database (almost 1GB) and it has a mixture of innodb and myisam tables. Does anyone have any general tips when backing it up or more specifically the commands i should send to mysqldump. I see that i should lock myisam tables, and that single transactions for innodb, but what if i have both. Also, what is actually happening when i lock an entire (very big) table on a production database.

    Read the article

  • Why is MySQL table_cache full but never used

    - by Jeremy Clarke
    I have been using the tuning-primer.sh script to tune my my.cnf settings. I have most things working well but the part about TABLE CACHE makes no sense: TABLE CACHE Current table_cache value = 900 tables. You have a total of 0 tables You have 900 open tables. Current table_cache hit rate is 1% , while 100% of your table cache is in use. You should probably increase your table_cache When I do SHOW STATUS; I get the following table-related numbers: Open_tables = 900 Opened_tables = 0 It seems like something is going wrong. I have some extra memory I could use on increasing the table_cache size, but my sense is that the 900 tables already available aren't doing anything, and increasing it will just waste more energy. Why might this be happening? Are there other settings that could cause all my table_cache slots to be used even though there are no hits to them? I have 150 max connections and probably no more than 4 tables per join, FWIW. Here is the tuner script output for temp tables, which I've also been tuning: TEMP TABLES Current max_heap_table_size = 90 M Current tmp_table_size = 90 M Of 11032358 temp tables, 40% were created on disk Perhaps you should increase your tmp_table_size and/or max_heap_table_size to reduce the number of disk-based temporary tables. Note! BLOB and TEXT columns are not allow in memory tables. If you are using these columns raising these values might not impact your ratio of on disk temp tables.

    Read the article

  • MySQL slave server from dumps

    - by HTF
    I've created a slave server from live machine which is acting as a master now. I use the following procedure to create it: mysqldump --opt -Q -B --master-data=2 --all-databases > dump.sql then I imported this dump on the new machine, applied the "CHANGE MASTER TO..." directive with a log file/position from the dump. Please note that I have around 8000 databases and I didn't stop the master while the dumps were running. The replication works fine but is this a properly method for creating a slave server? I'm planning to promote this slave to a master (different location) so I would like to make sure that there is a 100% data consistency between the servers. I've found this article where it says: The naive approach is just to use mysqldump to export a copy of the master and load it on the slave server. This works if you only have one database. With multiple database, you'll end up with inconsistent data. Mysqldump will dump data from each database on the server in a different transaction. That means that your export will have data from a different point in time for each database. Thank you

    Read the article

  • Doing a mysql dump causes swapping issues

    - by DFischer
    I do a mysqldump manually every night. I just noticed that after it is done and I try to access the website it is very slow. After I take a look at the free -mh I notice that the server is now swapping when it otherwise wasn't before the mysqldump. What am I to do in this case? Just restart the server every time I backup? That doesn't seem very effective. My database file raw is 1.1gb after the dump.

    Read the article

  • MySQL "Host" permissions

    - by Wayne M
    Exactly what is the best way to configure this? I have a user account for a web app specified, but I also want to connect to the database via a GUI. The host is specified as % but the GUI tool repeatedly says access denied although I am using the proper password. If I change this to localhost then I can connect via the command line, but not via the GUI. If I add two entries, then I can connect via the command line and not the GUI. Leaving only the % doesn't let me connect via the command line OR the GUI. I want to be able to connect both on the actual server (via the web app itself) AND via the GUI tool.

    Read the article

  • SASL (Postfix) authentication with MySQL and SHA1 pre-encrypted passwords

    - by webo
    I have a Rails app with the Devise authentication gem running user registration and login. I want to use the db table that Devise populates when a user registers as the table that Postfix uses to authenticate users. The table has all the fields that Postfix may want for SASL authentication except that Devise encrypts the password using SHA1 before placing it in the database. How could I go about getting Postfix/SASL to decrypt those passwords so that the user can be authenticated properly? Devise salts the password so I'm not sure if that helps. Any suggestions? I'd likely want to do something similar with Dovecot or Courier, I'm not attached to one quite yet.

    Read the article

  • How do I mirror a MySQL database?

    - by user45745
    I'm running two load balanced servers for one website, and I'd like the databases to be synchronized. Queries may be run on either of the two servers because they are both production sites, so the replication can't just work one way. It doesn't have to be in real-time, just fairly accurate so people don't notice a difference when they get switched to a different server.

    Read the article

  • MySQL gzipped Export in PhpMyAdmin has wrong size in Mozilla

    - by Michal Gow
    That is really strange. I am using PhpMyAdmin 2.11.9.6 on Linux hosting. While I am Exporting databases using "gzipped" compression in Mozilla, I am getting files which have size of uncompressed database, but they seems to be downloading in incredible speed (10 times quicker than is possible using my ISP). So at the end: for database of 10M size I am getting 10M gzip downloaded in miniseconds it has indeed shown 10M size on drive it is corrupted Zip compression is working just fine (I am getting file with cca 1M size with fine content of compressed database) And the weirdest thing: that is happening for Mozilla Firefox (13.0.1) only, Internet Explorer 9 is downloading correct gzipped files... Any hint?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97  | Next Page >