June 19, 2013

Post: Choosing a MySQL HA Solution - Post-Webinar Q&A

compared to 5.5, such as bug #69258, and bug #69318, and I think it might take one or twoto Oracle RAC; all of the SQL nodes in a MySQL Cluster installation are going to be talking to the same set of data nodes on the

Post: More on MySQL transaction descriptors optimization

two cases covered in the first post: single SELECT queries doing PRIMARY KEY lookups (aka QPS sysbench mode); same MySQL queriestables with 5M rows each (about 23GB). So it makes sense to check if thethe culprit for the results difference. We then compared results across all 3 boxes to

Post: Virident vCache vs. FlashCache: Part 2

of data (32 tables, 10M rows each) and a 4GiB buffer pool. The cache devices were flushed to disk immediately prior toof different dirty-page ratios on device performance, since this is the only parameter which can be reliably varied between the two in the same way. The

Post: Benchmarking Percona Server TokuDB vs InnoDB

of course I wanted to comparetables with 1bln of rows on this SSD, and projected InnoDB performance on this size will be the samequery_cache_size = 0 query_cache_type = 0 ft_min_word_len = 4 #default_table_type = InnoDB thread_stack = 192K tmp_table

Post: InnoDB Full-text Search in MySQL 5.6: Part 2, The Queries!

the one of two things will happen; either the results returned from a MyISAM FTS query will be exactly identical to the same querythe “value” column the PK, but neither of those worked. Also, trying to set innodb_ft_user_stopword_table produced the same

Post: MySQL 5.6 vs MySQL 5.5 and the Star Schema Benchmark

the data. Very little tuning was done. The goal was to see how MySQL 5.6 performs out-of-the-box as compared totable (lineorder). Each of the 13 queries were executed serially in a single connection I modified the queries to use ANSI JOIN syntax.  No other changes to the queries

Post: Using Flexviews - part two, change data capture

the transaction order and the source of the changes, respectively. Finally, note that the two insertions happened inside of the same transaction, and that the insertions happened before the

Post: Derived Tables and Views Performance

to each other but how do they compare in terms of performance ? Derived Tables in MySQL 5.0 seems toto be merged as it is quite the same task in terms of query optimization. Derived Tables are still handled by materializing them in the temporary table

Post: Heikki Tuuri answers to Innodb questions, Part II

the same thing. PZ: First Indeed writes are slower with Flash disks compared to Reads because Flash requires “erase” cycle to replace theof the PRIMARY KEY, then InnoDB should have placed the rows in contiguous blocks of 64 pages == 1 MB. Then a full table

Post: Join Optimizations in MySQL 5.6 and MariaDB 5.5

of rows from table2 that do not fit into the buffer pool, then worst case you could be reading the same page multiple times into theof this that the query on MariaDB 5.5 is slow as compared to MySQL 5.6. Next interesting thing are the last two columns of the table above and the