Improve Performance For InnoDB
Our database contains about 27,000 records only and it is very slow. Can someone please suggest any tips to increase the performance? We used InnoDB.
View Complete Forum Thread with Replies
Related Forum Messages:
Best Way To Improve Performance On Order By?
I hope someone can help me with the following problem. (Note: I will simplify my table structure to the essential) I have two tables, one containing objects and one containing the objects a user has, so basically I have * table_userObjects with PRIMARY KEY idUserObject INDEX ON idObject (not unique) * table_objects with PRIMARY KEY idObject INDEX ON name What I want to optimize is the query which gets the objects for one user and sorts them by name. For example: SELECT * FROM table_userObjects,table_objects WHERE table_userObjects.idObject = table_objects.idObject AND table_userObjects.idUser = 3 ORDER BY table_objects.name LIMIT x,30 The db has around 40000 different objects and the top users have 200000 different items. In this cases it takes around 6 seconds to run the query. If I leave out the orderby no sorting has to be done and the query runs fast as expected. Is there anyway to create an index on table_userObjects, based on the name of the objects from table_objects? Or some other way to speed up this query?
View Replies !
Indexes To Improve Performance
I am looking to add indexes to my database to try and improve performance. Now I heard someone say once that you should add an index to any column that you are planning to filter using in the where part of your statements. So my question is this, in below is an example i have a table that I use to store reports that are generated by the system (i haven't chosen this especially but it has the core element that i user everywhere else). These core elements and columns that i regally in a where clause have '*' next to them. As such if i was following the advice of were to add indexes, i would probably add one to each of these columns. Then there are the other three that have '+', which occasionally i conduct a '%%' (wildcard) search on to help me find a cretin report. given this, plus the index on the primary key almost every table would have an index on it. To me this seems a bit much. So how many is too many?
View Replies !
How To Set An Index On Table To Improve The Performance
i've got a table with about 500 mio records. there are 3 col. decimal,decimal,int. my aim is to find data which fits best to the two decimal col. in which way should i set the index for the best performance? at the moment my query needs sth about 5min and it shouldn't need longer than 10 sec. is it possible to improve the performance only by using the correct index.
View Replies !
Limit Records To Improve Performance
I'm facing a performance issue, I'm using JDBC to read rows on a huge mySQL database 1.5 Million rows. The programme basically read rows by sample of 1000 rows. select * from <tbl_name> LIMIT i, i+1000 and print result in a text file. This takes 5 minutes for the first 500000 rows, 10 min for the following 500000 and 18 for the rest. Which seems to me very slow just for reading rows? I wonder 2 things: 1- is this normal for mySQL to take this time? 2- if not, is using LIMIT this way in the SQL would have an effect on mySQL performance? 2- how can I improve this performance. If you think of anything that can improve the performance on a select * from , please let me know.
View Replies !
Innodb Performance (CPU, RAM)?
I have a table with approx. 150,000,000 ++ rows. It should be approx 80 byte for each row. Now I'm planning to use it with mysql/innodb. Can you guys suggest anything about this. I have many questions... Can Innodb work well with such tables? Will queries (select/update) be slow? What hardware do you suggest, cpu/ram?
View Replies !
Innodb Performance/reliability
I'm looking for some articles/posts about people using the innodb engine for large transactional sites. I want to port some of our Oracle dbs to mysql using this engine to save some serious cash, but can't find some real world examples. I've read Jeremy Zawodny's high performance MySQL book and am pretty excited about this product. I just need to convince some higher ups if the innodb engine can handle it.
View Replies !
Performance :: InnoDB Or MyISAM?
One of my customers runs MySQL. They encounter performance problems. It looks to be the storage, although they run on performant EMC storage (15000 rpm disks, RAID-1). I asked them how their MySQL is setup and they run MyISAM for nearly all tables, altough their application is typical OLTP. It is in my knowledge that you should use InnoDB for OLTP databases, or am I wrong. My customer told me that they did tests with MyISAM vs InnoDB and he told me MyISAM was more performant. Is that possible ? I can imagine that they never will have enough server memory to keep all tables of their 50GB database in memory. If there is not enough server memory to keep all tables in memory via MyISAM, what will happen ? Swapping, resulting in loads of extra I/O ?
View Replies !
InnoDB Insert Performance
I was aware that innodb inserts were not as fast as myisam but on my server I think they still take too long. Simple insert/update commands take between 20 to 40 milliseconds. This would imply about 30 per second if that was the only thing the server was doing which doesn't sound right to me. As a test I created this ultra-simple table with one int column and inserting a value in it still takes 10 millis every time: mysql> create table test (n int) engine=InnoDB; Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.09 sec) mysql> insert into test values (1); Query OK, 1 row affected (0.01 sec) Is this actually typical or is my server misconfigured. If so, how do I debug this? What variables should I look into?
View Replies !
Performance & Locking :: MyISAM Or InnoDB
For my website I need to create a table of thousands of rows that will determine between a selected pair of users which user is the first to submit a request. Basically, if user A and B are grouped together and A submits the request first, then when B tries to submit the request it will show that A has already done so. To do this is MyISAM is obvious: lock the table 1st before A reads, if A is the 1st one then updates row and unlock table (do the same for B). However, since the table could be large (thousands of rows) and I'm only concerntrating on few users at a time(most cases two), I don't know if locking the whole table is overkill and can have bad performance. I was looking at InnoDB's row locking ability but I'm not sure this will provide what I need, is there any example to show how do I use the row locking function to achieve what I'm trying to do?
View Replies !
Large Table Performance Problem With MYSQL Performance
I am doing some benchmarking of an application using MYSQL under Windows and I confused about the results. Environment Emachine 6417 with amd3200+ 64 bit processor 3.3GB ram mysql 4.1 with odbc 3.51 MYISAM windows 2003 server std edition date, account and invoice number are indexed Database size 18 million rows I am querying (selecting) columns of a date and an account our tester program that opens a socket to the Mysql database and does a select for the above n times each time the date and the account is randomized to minimize hits on records closeby. This program will perform over 1000 queries per second. At the end, the Mysql socket will be closed Even when the socket is closed each time, I still get 400 queries per second. When I enter a similar query manually a web interface, I get about 3-9 second response time. This program opens/closes a socket for each query when using EMS I get similar 9 second results. Does anyone have any suggestions Also in production, this table will be accesse for both read and write will I have problems. My testing showed that Innodb is much slower.
View Replies !
Improve Speed
I need to improve the speed of my ff sql statement but I do not know HOW! I am using mysql in running this. If the records are below a thousand, I have no problem getting the info quickly. But I tried it on 700,000 records, the feedback took 22 secs.In this sql statement, I am currenly accessing the same table but I have to get the rows of certain conditions multiplied to different numbers. SELECT COUNT(IF(code='play',1,NULL))*5+count(IF(code like 'ok%',1,NULL))*2.50 + COUNT(IF(code='prev' OR code='prev_here',1,NULL))*15 + COUNT(IF(code='hello' OR code='hi',1,NULL))*15 + COUNT(IF(code='new',1,NULL))* 2.50 as sum from table;
View Replies !
Improve Query
I have this query that I use for stepping through records in a table, it selects for me the lowest, previous, next and highest record id refs for the table in question given the current record number. However it returns its query on two rows with repeated (and obsolete) data due to the case statement, I pick out the data I require using mysql_result command in PHP, but it would be much nicer if there was a way to only return a one row result with only the data I require. user_id is the autoinc field in table_t $id is the current record number being viewed PHP SELECTmin(user_id) AS First,max(user_id) AS Last, CASE when sign(user_id - '$id') > 0 then min(user_id) else max(user_id) end AS PrevNextFROM table_tWHERE user_id <> '$id'GROUP BY sign(user_id - '$id')ORDER BY sign(user_id - '$id') for completeness my PHP code for extracting the values i need is PHP $first = mysql_result($result,0,0);$prev = mysql_result($result,0,2);$next = mysql_result($result,1,2);$last = mysql_result($result,1,1);
View Replies !
Improve SELECT Command
I perform a SELECT on my database, but it takes over a minute for every run. I have to run it over 10000 times (with different values in the WHERE), so it takes way too long. A was therefore wondering if I could improve the query speed. Below you find the query. It is based on the ratio between a pixel (pix) vs. the average of its neighbourhood (from geo) in the same table (vgt) based on additional requirements (mgba,mgsc,eco). Code:
View Replies !
Improve The Execution Time
i am new to db2 want to ask questions about the performance of my sql commands for a view based another 3 views the sql commnads are as following: create view b_central_subgroup as select communicator as central_member, project_id as project_id from b_normalized_communicator intersect select initiator as central_member, project_id as project_id from b_normalized_initiator intersect select monospeaker as central_member, project_id as project_id from b_normalized_monospeaker it takes 4.4 seconds to execute this sql. it likes that the time is the summ of the other three views. Can the execution time be reduced through some other methods? If it is possible , then how ?
View Replies !
How To Improve On A Nested Select
I'm working on a simple data import tool, and I need to insert email addresses from table two into table one, if they don't already exist in table one. I figured this was a pretty easy nested select statement, but what I'm doing is getting my site taken off line for exceeding the CPU limit. Here's the SQL I'm using to get the new email addresses: SELECT distinct value, id FROM table_two WHERE name = 'email_address' AND value NOT IN (SELECT DISTINCT subscriber_email FROM table_one) There are about 4600 rows in table one, and 145,000 rows in table two. Does this seem like it would be a burdensome query? I'm not a SQL expert my any means, so is there a better way to go about this? It seemed like a simple one to me. Maybe my web host is just stingy with the CPU time.
View Replies !
How Do You Improve The Order By In Queries?
I read somewhere about mysql having to scan the table twice or something with "order by something" this was on mysql.com (as far as I remember) it said something about having it only have to scan it once but it didn't explain how to do it I really want to know, because a 500k row table of mine with a few indexes that cut it down to about 90k per topic is lagging more than I want (okay, so 1.2 seconds average page load on a 8mb connection isn't too bad, but I want to fix this order by stuff and maybe make it 0.9 or 1.0 :P)
View Replies !
Index To Improve Queries With AVG()
Is there any way to create some sort of index that will improve the performance of queries which use the AVG() function. An EXPLAIN statement on the query indicates that no index is being used. There are indexes on the ratings table for ID and ratings but they don't seem to be getting used EXPLAIN SELECT u.username AS username, ur.users_ID AS user_ID, IFNULL((AVG(r.rating))*(COUNT(ur.ratings_ID)),0) AS overall_score FROM ratings AS r, user_ratings AS ur, users AS u WHERE r.ID=ur.ratings_ID AND ur.active='yes' AND u.ID=ur.users_ID AND u.active='yes' GROUP BY ur.users_ID ORDER BY overall_score DESC LIMIT 0,40 id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra 1 SIMPLE r ALL PRIMARY 5 Using temporary; Using filesort 1 SIMPLE ur ref rating,users_ID_2,active rating 4 v2.r.ID 239 Using where 1 SIMPLE u eq_ref PRIMARY,active PRIMARY 4 v2.ur.users_ID 1 Using where
View Replies !
How To Improve The Speed Of Mysql Query Using Count(*)
I'm using this kind of queries in mysql in InnoDB engine Select count(*) from marking1 where persondate between '2007-04-23 00:00:00.000' and '2007-04-23 23:59:59.999' and PersonName='aaa' While executing these queries from front end VB, It takes above 5 secs with 50 thousand records. How can I improve speed for this kind of queries. Is there any alternation for this command.
View Replies !
Foreign Keys Without Using InnoDB? (Server Disabled InnoDB - Any Way To Link Tables?)
I guess this is a two-part question: 1) Is there any way to use foreign keys (and enforce them) without storing them in InnoDB? My hosted server vendor has disabled InnoDB access across the board because it requires remote access (not quite sure I understand the why) and they only want people to edit through their online GUI.... 2) If there's absolutely no way to link tables without using InnoDB, would anyone recommend a good hosting service that allows it? Tech support for readyhosting said there's no way any shared server service is going to allow this, but since it's a HUGE part of the functionality of relational databases,
View Replies !
Innodb Corruption, Must Use Skip Innodb
----log file--- Feb 7 09:48:27 ubuntu-server mysqld[9941]: InnoDB: The log sequence number in ibdata files does not match Feb 7 09:48:27 ubuntu-server mysqld[9941]: InnoDB: the log sequence number in the ib_logfiles! Feb 7 09:48:27 ubuntu-server mysqld[9941]: 090207 9:48:27 InnoDB: Database was not shut down normally! Feb 7 09:48:27 ubuntu-server mysqld[9941]: InnoDB: Starting crash recovery. Feb 7 09:48:27 ubuntu-server mysqld[9941]: InnoDB: Reading tablespace information from the .ibd files... Feb 7 09:48:27 ubuntu-server mysqld[9941]: InnoDB: Restoring possible half-written data pages from the doublewrite Feb 7 09:48:27 ubuntu-server mysqld[9941]: InnoDB: buffer... Feb 7 09:48:28 ubuntu-server mysqld[9941]: InnoDB: Page directory corruption: supremum not pointed to Feb 7 09:48:28 ubuntu-server mysqld[9941]: 090207 9:48:28 InnoDB: Page dump in ascii and hex (16384 bytes): Feb 7 09:48:28 ubuntu-server mysqld[9941]: len 16384; hex
View Replies !
IO Performance
I'm running a 5.0.51a mysql server on pentium M. My application is made of 30 myisam tables written every 2 seconds and a very few reads (1 evry hour) from the whole table. Each table is a kind of circular buffer (fixed number of line, current line). Each line of a table contains a medium blob whith fixed size (about 70k). I know the average output (Kb/sec) from the client to th server, says 200 Kb/sec. When trying to measure this flow with 2 invocations of "show global status like '%Bytes%'; followed by division by the elapsed time, I find between 1 and 2 times more (400 Kb/s). When I measure the output to the disk with the iostat command (iostat -d -k 10) I find 4 times more (800 Kb/s) and a lot of read Kb/s (100 kB/s). Is this normal or is there some tunning to do ? During this time, the iowait rate is very high (30%). Is this normal or is there some tunning to do ?
View Replies !
Best For Performance
It's a web application, accessed via internet, with around 100.000 clients and each client have around 10 users. This web app have a database of around 100 tables. Ok, the question is: Is it better to have each client with it's own catalog on the database (each catalog with around 100 tables) or is it better to use one catalog for all the clients (the tables would have a lot more records this way, but only one catalog)? I'm considering performance.
View Replies !
Which Is Better In Performance
country (id) country (1) America (2) Germany (3) Canada (4) China (5) Egypt (6) Russia (7) Korea (8) France (9) Brazil city (id) city (1) Berlin (2) New York (3) Cairo (4) Paris (5) Seoul (6) Peking (7) Chicago (8) Moscow (9) Denver I have two tables like the above. And I have one of these tables below. message1 (id) (city) message (1) (2) I love New York. (2) (5) Kumkang mountains are beautiful. (3) (4) I was born in France. (4) (6) Great Wall is great. (5) (7) Chicago is a big city. message2 (id) (city) (country) message (1) (2) (1) I love New York. (2) (5) (7) Kumkang mountains are beautiful. (3) (4) (8) I was born in France. (4) (6) (4) Great Wall is great. (5) (7) (1) Chicago is a big city. code1 select city, country from message1 left join city on city.id=message1.city left join country on country.id=city.country code2 select city, country from message2 left join city on city.id=message2.city left join ccountry on country.id=message2.country I think The codes above have a same result.(sorry, I didn't test it.)
View Replies !
Performance Of LIKE
I'm weighing the performance of materialised path vs. nested set algorithms, for storing a tree structure. The tree will have a lot of searches, a fair amount of inserts, but probably fairly few move-operations. The decisive factor seems to be the speed of a LIKE-query. I know, that regular expressions perform pretty well, as long as they are anchored. From this, I deduct, that LIKE must be able to perform equally good, since a path is indeed anchored. The questions is, if a LIKE will always result in a full scan, or if it can utilise indices? If it doesn't allow use of indices, would it be worth it, to use an equality comparison, on a substring (Which is essentially, what I'll be querying for) or am I just entirely missing the point?
View Replies !
Balance Performance
My computer is AMD athlon 64 3400+ with 1.5G DDR. when i execute the following sql in mysql 5.XX. select c.filename, c.topic from articles c where c.topic in (select a.topic from articles a group by a.topic having count(a.topic)>1) order by topic; It eat up all the cpu power , and the mysql server stop responsing until end of this query. Even my apache stop responing too. How to fix this? How can i set the CPU limit of each query connection?
View Replies !
Performance MySQL With ADO VB
I'm developing an VB application which uses the SAX parser and ADO VB to insert.update data in in MySQL. The perormance is very bad. If I use the same data and insert/update to a MS Access database it takes 14 minutes. But using MySQL it takes about 5 hours! Here's the piece of code which takes the most time. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Code:
View Replies !
MySQL Performance
We ran MySQL (4.0.15-standard, 64-bit, SuSe 8.0) benchmarks on 2 CPU and 4 CPU Opteron machines. Mostly we tested insertion times with many simultaneous connections (hundreds). To our surprise we did not find significant differences.Each of our servers (2 and 4 CPU machine) has one 1Gbit network connection. I have feelings that the machines are the network bounded, not the CPU bounded. Could it be true? How to verify it?
View Replies !
Mysqlcheck Performance
I launch the command line: "mysqlcheck --repair dbname" over a database with only one myisam table of more than 10.000.000 rows and 5 GB. The elapsed time to repair is about 1 hour! Is possible to increase speed?
View Replies !
Low Performance With Linux SMP
I use #mysql -V mysql Ver 12.21 Distrib 4.0.15, for suse linux (i686) with a SMP-kernel When I used this version with a kernel not SMP mysql was very very fast but now with the SMP-kernel the mysql is very very slow. I takes several minutes to make an INSERT on a table with near 50.000 Records Is there any problem with mysql an SMP? is a problem of the version I have installed?
View Replies !
Slow Performance
On my index.php page, I have a simple query that checks the session_id against a table where I store other session_id'. If it's not there, it records it (unique hit). If it's there, it doesn't record it (not a unique hit.) This usually goes off without a hitch, and every month or so I empty the table. Right now I only have about 2500 rows, and it's taking forever to load the page. Is there something possibly server related that could be causing this? My host charges an arm and a leg just to see if there's something wrong if I bring up an issue, so I'd like some insight as to whether there's a commonly known server-side issue that can bog down performance.
View Replies !
Performance Needed
I have two tables. One for products and one for reviews. I have setup a detail page which displays the various fields out of the products table and then looks for all reviews in the reviews table which match the products key and display the average. All good so far. I want to have a page which displays a whole list of the products and show their rating next to them but I'm wondering if making it search the reviews table and calculate the average for 50 products in one go is going to cause a bit of a strain on the server? Is there another way I can do this, perhaps storing the precalculated average in the products table but how would I go about doing that?
View Replies !
How To Check Performance?
I have a web application which uses MySQL and I wanted to check out the performance of the database. I have been trying to use JMeter to test the performance of it but I was wondering if there is anything MySQL specific which can give me statistics on performance etc.
View Replies !
SELECT WHERE Performance On LIKE Vs =
I have a table: CREATE TABLE file (id VARCHAR(10) PRIMARY KEY, image MEDIUMBLOB); The table is filled with 4073 rows with images of 50-100k each. When I do a SELECT query using a WHERE-clause I get a huge difference in time before the result is delivered: SELECT image FROM file WHERE id=1234567801; 1 row in set (3.73 sec) SELECT image FROM file WHERE id LIKE 1234567801; 1 row in set (0.02 sec) Why is this difference in times?
View Replies !
(View) Performance
I have a huge table with product data from different shops in my database. There is a flag column 'import' witch flagt products with 1 for my PHP script. To select from one shop all product individually, work with it, and then update these product import flag to 0 in the database, seems to be the slowest way. I thougt about a view about all products of a shop with flag '1'. Code:
View Replies !
Performance (speed)
I have implemented a simple web crawler which uses a mySQL database to save a list of URLs to crawl. Obviously I dont wish to crawl the same URL twice so before adding a URL to the database I search the database first to ensure it hasn't already been added. When I add URLs to the database it is usually done it batches of 150 URLs, this is the process I use to search for an existing URL: I use a PreparedStatement called 'findUrlStatement' which consists of: SELECT Url FROM urlTable WHERE Url = ? Then I use this code to determine if a URL is already in he database: findUrlStatement.setString(1, url); ResultSet urlFound = findUrlStatement.executeQuery(); if (!urlFound.next()) { // The URL is NEW, so add it to the database } As you can see the above routine is repeated for each of the 150 URLs. This typically takes anything from 4-8 seconds to complete.
View Replies !
SET Datatype Performance
I have a βlittleβ performance problem using the SET datatype. I have a database with over 800,000 rows which have 34 columns which are enum(β0β,β1β) to describe various categories. So when I search for a certain category or categories the search would be like: Select count(id) from my_table where cat1=β1β and cat10=β1β and cat25=β1β; If cat1 is indexed and cat10 is not. Select count(id) from my_table where cat=β1β; would return data in less than a sec while select count(id) from my_table where cat10=β1β might take over 5-6 secs to return the value. Since I canβt index all 34 category columns, due limitations of how many indexes I can create (there are other fields that required index besides the categories) I looked into how to do this more efficiently. I came up with the idea if using the set datatype. I created a test table CREATE TABLE set_test( id INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY, cats SET('cat1','cat2','cat3',β¦β¦'cat34') ); I loaded it up with 800,000 values from my main table and searches like Select count(id) from set_test where cats&1; Would return the count in less than a second. So far so good. So I added a new column to the main database with the βcatsβ column, containing the same info I had in the set_test table. To my surprise: Select count(id) from my_table where cats&1; Would take over 6 secs to return the value. Or course the table has 45 columns (including the old 34 category columns) instead of two, but does it really make that much of a difference? If so, what can I do to get a decent performance?
View Replies !
Performance Tips
I'm working with 5.0.29 and have a model with 35 tables. When I click a table for modification or move the element into de model my computer lost performance and WB take a while to respond (enought to desesperate in daily use). Have a tips page to check posible reasons or tips for a better performance?. My pc have a Intel dual CPU E210 2GHz and 2MB RAM, then I thinks that is enougth for run a normal program. Please send me tips. System info from MySQL WM MySQL Workbench OSS for Windows version 5.0.29 Cairo Version: 1.5.12 Rendering Mode: GDI Rendering OpenGL Driver Version: Not Detected OS: Windows XP CPU: 2x Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2180 @ 2.00GHz, 2.0 GB RAM Video adapter info: Adapter type: NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT Chip Type: GeForce 7300 GT BIOS String: Version 5.73.22.62.72 Video Memory: 262144 KB
View Replies !
Insert Performance
I'm looking for the fastest way to insert large data into one table with no indices. With the batch size of 5000 rows, test application in Java was doing MULTILINE inserts 5-10 times faster than anything else. My other considerations were plain inserts in a loop and PreparedStatement.executeBatch() which performed almost the same. I cannot go with INSERT DELAYED due to the nature of my application. I could not find any confirmation that multiline is truly the fastest one. Also very surprised that executeBatch and plain inserts in a loop are almost the same. MySQL engine: Community Server 5.1.31 win32 Application language: Java 1.6 Connector: Connector/J 5.1.6
View Replies !
Improving The Performance
Serve Spec: AMD 2000 RAM 1.5 GB Fedora 10 How can I modify my.cnf for a better performance. Current file looks like [mysqld] datadir=/var/lib/mysql socket=/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock user=mysql # Default to using old password format for compatibility with mysql 3.x # clients (those using the mysqlclient10 compatibility package). old_passwords=1 # To allow mysqld to connect to a MySQL Cluster management daemon, uncomment # these lines and adjust the connectstring as needed. #ndbcluster #ndb-connectstring="nodeid=4;host=localhost:1186" [mysqld_safe] log-error=/var/log/mysqld.log pid-file=/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.pid [ndbd] # If you are running a MySQL Cluster storage daemon (ndbd) on this machine, # adjust its connection to the management daemon here. # Note: ndbd init script requires this to include nodeid! connect-string="nodeid=2;host=localhost:1186" [ndb_mgm] # connection string for MySQL Cluster management tool connect-string="host=localhost:1186"
View Replies !
Performance Enhancements
I'm a relative newbie to MySQL, my main role is network admin/management, we have a bespoke database system, that has been designed for us, it unfortunately has a fairly bulky FoxPro (C++) front end on it and within our local network runs fine, and even externally to our VPN based offices, the performance is also very good - what I would like to know, is what can i do to ensure superb performance all of the time, what monitoring tools can i use, and what resources are out there to further enhance it's stability and speed... Also, are there any other good resources people may know of to actually convert this client/server based application to Web Based, i am a web developer in my spare time and work time, and as such have developed one or two database driven web applications....I feel that moving to a solution such as this could provide unparalleled expansion capability, whilst further enhancing the speed and stability of the application...
View Replies !
Performance Of Views
I have a large table in a database that takes a long time to do any queries on. All user queries on this table are done as part of a background process at the moment. The table holds transaction information from organisation and account id's; each organisation may have more than one account id. This table contains the raw transaction data, so there are many 1000's of records for each id. The table is keyed on customer number, which is different from organisation id and one customer number may have more than one organisation id. Code:
View Replies !
Performance Vs Many Records
I currently have 300 records in table "metrics". These metrics are assigned to users. So each user has access to the 300 metrics. by default, my SQL will load all 300 on a page for the user. I am now wanting the users to be able to say which they want to appear. So, out of the 300 they can tick the ones they want to see. What's the best way of doing this? I have thought about having a table called metrics_to_user which would store the user ID and a whole list of the metrics they choose. By default, every user would then need 300 records in this table? then they untick ones they dont want to see. Or another way is just to store just the ones they DONT want to see. So when I am loading the page, I do some SQL to get all 300, but somehow forget the ones they dont want.
View Replies !
Performance Issue
Im running mysql4.0.13 on FrreBSD 5.1-release. The problem is MySQL is using 95% of the cpu leaving 0% idle and pushing the load avg up to > 1. This is the output of mysqladmin processlist.. $ mysqladmin -uroot -p processlist; Enter password: +--------+------+-----------+----+---------+------+-------+------------------+ | Id | User | Host | db | Command | Time | State | Info | +--------+------+-----------+----+---------+------+-------+------------------+ | 387980 | root | localhost | | Query | 0 | | show processlist | +--------+------+-----------+----+---------+------+-------+------------------+ $ uptime 8:51PM up 82 days, 5:18, 2 users, load averages: 1.03, 1.07, 1.23 I normally would expect a slow query or a table that requires optimisation, but without any hints from the processlist, where can i start looking?
View Replies !
Performance - Select *
I'm trying to optimize an application, which is putting way too much load on the rdbms. Currently most queries select *, but I'm wondering how much it matters in terms of performance to specify the exact number of columns needed ? Obviously, I'd transfer less data from rdbms to application layer, but apart from that is there anything to archieve ?
View Replies !
Performance Troubles
I'm having some trouble with optimising my database queries. I've recently been making use of a feature that my host provides that lets me create reports on any queries that are taking more than 1 second to generate. Quite honestly I'm not sure if it could be the table structure, indexing issues or just the overall query that's horribly coded. I've attached the query report from the server in a post attachment. As you can see I like using my inner joins, hehe. Here are the table rows, in case you're wondering how big tables are relative to each other: archive - 428,720 rows blo - 3,741 rows users - 3,945 rows It might be useful information. So yeah, basically what can I do, if anything, to get these queries to move along. Points would be awesome. :-)
View Replies !
|
TRACKER
