<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Predicting how long data load would take</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/</link>
	<description>Everything about MySQL Performance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:35:44 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/comment-page-1/#comment-318545</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:31:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/#comment-318545</guid>
		<description>Mike, 

Using direct data load will be faster.  How much faster depends on a a lot of factors - data types and size, amount of indexes etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike, </p>
<p>Using direct data load will be faster.  How much faster depends on a a lot of factors &#8211; data types and size, amount of indexes etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/comment-page-1/#comment-318531</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/#comment-318531</guid>
		<description>So which is faster, if I have 200,000+ records coming from a text file, using php and doing inserts or doing a bulk data import?  Is there a significant difference?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So which is faster, if I have 200,000+ records coming from a text file, using php and doing inserts or doing a bulk data import?  Is there a significant difference?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/comment-page-1/#comment-215047</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:53:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/#comment-215047</guid>
		<description>Good :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good <img src='http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Wang</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/comment-page-1/#comment-211516</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Wang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:43:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/#comment-211516</guid>
		<description>Peter,

I am sorry that I spoke too soon.  I tried it again, and it seemed working.  thanks Peter!

Jason</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peter,</p>
<p>I am sorry that I spoke too soon.  I tried it again, and it seemed working.  thanks Peter!</p>
<p>Jason</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Wang</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/comment-page-1/#comment-211502</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Wang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:58:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/#comment-211502</guid>
		<description>Peter,

Thanks do much for the prompt reply!

I tried the table partitioning, but it did not seem to work.  I might not partition on the right values.  but again, how do I find out a table is partitioned?  &quot;desc table_name&quot; dose no show any information on the partitioning.  

thanks,

Jason</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peter,</p>
<p>Thanks do much for the prompt reply!</p>
<p>I tried the table partitioning, but it did not seem to work.  I might not partition on the right values.  but again, how do I find out a table is partitioned?  &#8220;desc table_name&#8221; dose no show any information on the partitioning.  </p>
<p>thanks,</p>
<p>Jason</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/comment-page-1/#comment-211262</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:47:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/#comment-211262</guid>
		<description>Jason,

The slowdown happens because BTREE (which tends to get a lot of random IO) becomes too large to fit in cache. 
The solution is simple - keep BTREE small enough so it does not happen.

In MySQL 5.1 you can use partitions to use just this, in MySQL 5.0 and below you can just use multiple tables.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jason,</p>
<p>The slowdown happens because BTREE (which tends to get a lot of random IO) becomes too large to fit in cache.<br />
The solution is simple &#8211; keep BTREE small enough so it does not happen.</p>
<p>In MySQL 5.1 you can use partitions to use just this, in MySQL 5.0 and below you can just use multiple tables.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Wang</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/comment-page-1/#comment-211056</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Wang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 04:06:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/#comment-211056</guid>
		<description>Peter,

Thanks for this wonder blog on the load performance.  It is so timely.  I was trying to evaluate MySql performance to see if it could fulfill our requirement.  I found the data insertioin speed slows down drammatically (about 300 times slower) when the table size reaches to a certain number, just like you mentioned in this blog.  I tuned on the paramerters like  innodb_buffer_pool_size, large innodb_log_file_size, and a few other ones to the max values my machine can take.  It does increase the speed and also push the threshold of the break point to a much larger table size.  but I can not avoid the break down of the insertion speed completely.  It will happen sooner or later.  My question is that is this type of insertion speed drammtic slow down scenario can never be avoided no matter how large the CPU and RAM are?  The result of larger CPU and RAM can only push the break down further on a larger table size, but can completely elimiate it?

I did this test on MySql 5.0 and my laptop has 2.6 GHZ CPU and 2GB Memory.  I found the insertion speed slow down at about 1GB table size.  I use JDBC to insert 50,000 records with one insertion.  the insertion time is 3 second.  when it reach Number 100 insertion, the insertion time eventually reaches 900 seconds and still increase.

Thank you very much with your earliest help!

Jason</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peter,</p>
<p>Thanks for this wonder blog on the load performance.  It is so timely.  I was trying to evaluate MySql performance to see if it could fulfill our requirement.  I found the data insertioin speed slows down drammatically (about 300 times slower) when the table size reaches to a certain number, just like you mentioned in this blog.  I tuned on the paramerters like  innodb_buffer_pool_size, large innodb_log_file_size, and a few other ones to the max values my machine can take.  It does increase the speed and also push the threshold of the break point to a much larger table size.  but I can not avoid the break down of the insertion speed completely.  It will happen sooner or later.  My question is that is this type of insertion speed drammtic slow down scenario can never be avoided no matter how large the CPU and RAM are?  The result of larger CPU and RAM can only push the break down further on a larger table size, but can completely elimiate it?</p>
<p>I did this test on MySql 5.0 and my laptop has 2.6 GHZ CPU and 2GB Memory.  I found the insertion speed slow down at about 1GB table size.  I use JDBC to insert 50,000 records with one insertion.  the insertion time is 3 second.  when it reach Number 100 insertion, the insertion time eventually reaches 900 seconds and still increase.</p>
<p>Thank you very much with your earliest help!</p>
<p>Jason</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: shinguz</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/comment-page-1/#comment-130816</link>
		<dc:creator>shinguz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 16:17:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/05/24/predicting-how-long-data-load-would-take/#comment-130816</guid>
		<description>What is your opinion/experience about preloading indexes and tables (MyISAM and InnoDB)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is your opinion/experience about preloading indexes and tables (MyISAM and InnoDB)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
