Hello Igor,
Please find below the combined patch for MWL#121. It is ready for review.
diff -urN --exclude='.*'
maria-5.3-dsmrr-for-cpk-clean/mysql-test/r/innodb_mrr_cpk.result
maria-5.3-dsmrr-for-cpk-noc/mysql-test/r/innodb_mrr_cpk.result
--- maria-5.3-dsmrr-for-cpk-clean/mysql-test/r/innodb_
Hello 5.3 developers,
We all know that 5.3 tree have some buildbot failures that
- are unlikely to be result of any 5.3 work,
- cannot be observed in 5.2
- still are somehow present.
I got suspicious about one failure, and investigated it:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/maria/+bug/597742. Long stor
Hi Timour,
I'm having difficulties with finishing 5.2->5.3 merge. Could you please take a
look at
https://bugs.launchpad.net/maria/+bug/598972 ? The questions are in the bug
entry.
BR
Sergey
--
Sergey Petrunia, Software Developer
Monty Program AB, http://askmonty.org
Blog: http://s.petrunia.n
Hello Igor,
It has come to my attention that sql_join_cache.cc does not have as many
update_virtual_fields() calls as I think it ought to have.
My reasoning was as follows: AFAIU when one has read a record from a table,
they must call update_virtual_fields() before they try to evaluate the
atta
Hello Igor,
Based on our discussions, I've filed
* http://askmonty.org/worklog/Server-RawIdeaBin/index.pl?tid=123
"DS-MRR for clustered PKs: more efficient buffer use"
* http://askmonty.org/worklog/Server-RawIdeaBin/index.pl?tid=124
"DS-MRR for clustered PKs: cost function"
* http://askmont
Timour,
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 01:17:34PM +0400, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
>
> I'm having difficulties with finishing 5.2->5.3 merge. Could you please take
> a look at
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/maria/+bug/598972 ? The questions are in the bug
> entry.
Any update on
Hello Igor,
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:55:58PM -0700, Igor Babaev wrote:
> According to our agreement I introduced a new flag for MRR.
> I called it HA_MRR_MATERIALIZED_KEYS. This flag passed to any MMR
> interface function that takes mrr_mode as a parameter says:
> key values used in ranges are m
Hello Igor,
Please find the feedback below.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 07:08:34PM -0700, Igor Babaev wrote:
> Please review this patch for the 5.2 tree.
>
> Regards,
> Igor.
>
> Original Message
> Subject: [Commits] bzr commit into Mariadb 5.2, with Maria 2.0:maria/5.2
> branch (
Hello Igor,
Ok to push.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 07:08:58PM -0700, Igor Babaev wrote:
> Please review this patch for the 5.2 tree.
>
> Regards,
> Igor.
>
>
> Original Message
> Subject: [Commits] bzr commit into Mariadb 5.2, with Maria 2.0:maria/5.2
> branch (igor:2822) Bug#60
Hello Igor,
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 04:54:37PM -0700, Igor Babaev wrote:
> Please review this patch for the 5.2 tree.
>
> Regards,
> Igor.
Ok to push.
> Original Message
> Subject: [Commits] bzr commit into Mariadb 5.2, with Maria 2.0:maria/5.2
> branch (igor:2823) Bug#603186
Hello Igor,
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:42:49AM -0700, Igor Babaev wrote:
> === modified file 'sql/table.cc'
> --- a/sql/table.cc2010-07-13 14:34:14 +
> +++ b/sql/table.cc2010-07-17 07:37:48 +
> @@ -1930,8 +1930,6 @@ end:
> semantic analysis of the item by calling the the funct
Hello Igor,
Ok to push.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:43:18PM -0700, Igor Babaev wrote:
> Sergey,
>
> Please review this patch for the 5.2 tree.
>
> Regards,
> Igor.
>
>
> Original Message
> Subject: [Commits] bzr commit into Mariadb 5.2, with Maria 2.0:maria/5.2
> branch (igor
Hello Igor,
Ok to push.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:01:30PM -0700, Igor Babaev wrote:
> Sergey,
>
> Please review this trivial patch for the 5.2 tree.
>
> Regards,
> Igor.
>
> Original Message
> Subject: [Commits] bzr commit into Mariadb 5.2, with Maria 2.0:maria/5.2
> branch
Hello Igor,
Ok to push. I'm sorry for the delay.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 10:50:03PM -0700, Igor Babaev wrote:
> #At lp:maria based on revid:mo...@askmonty.org-20100615220051-2xp3g51fysxle1r1
>
> 2869 Igor Babaev 2010-07-25
> Fixed bug #52005.
> Corrected coding for Warshall's al
Hi Philip,
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 09:12:19AM +0200, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
> Please find attached the combined patch of DS-MRR for clustered PKs and key
> sorting.
>
> The tree is in launchpad and buildbot also:
> https://code.launchpad.net/~maria-captains/maria/5.3-dsmrr-c
Hi Philip,
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 08:17:57PM +0300, Philip Stoev wrote:
> I have now managed to make buildbot produce automatic LCOV reports for
> MariaDB. You can view them here
>
> http://fedora13.selfip.org/lcov/
I looked, and noticed a problem: this coverage generator ignores markup
like '
Hello Igor,
Please find some minor comments below. Ok to push after they are addressed.
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 05:14:08AM -0700, Igor Babaev wrote:
> At file:///home/igor/maria/maria-5.3-mwl128-bug57024/
>
>
> revno: 2827
> revision-
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 10:54:37AM +0400, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
> Hello Igor,
>
> Please find attached the combined patch that addresses all of the review
> feedback provided so far.
>
> The tree is in launchpad and buildbot also:
> https://code.launchpad.net/~maria-cap
Hi!
I was asked about this performance problem: consider a query
select * from tbl where tbl.key like '%foo%'
Table records are big, much larger than the length of the key. LIKE condition
is very selective, however its pattern starts with '%', so we can't construct
range access (and they ar
Hello,
I've noticed that centos5-amd64-minimal builds innodb plugin for MariaDB 5.2
and 5.3 (didn't check 5.1)
For example, if one takes this build
http://buildbot.askmonty.org/buildbot/builders/centos5-amd64-minimal/builds/706/
and looks at compliation log
http://buildbot.askmonty.org/buildbot/
Hi Sanja,
subselect_cache fails on sol-sparc-32 in current 5.3-merge-from-5.2:
http://buildbot.askmonty.org/buildbot/builders/sol-sparc-32/builds/575/steps/test/logs/stdio
Any idea about this? Have we observed such failure before or it has appeared in
the merge?
BR
Sergey
--
Sergey Petrunia,
Hi Timour,
Answers to irc questions:
spetrunia, I found a problem in get_partial_join_cost(), could you
please look at this:
for (uint i= join->const_tables; i < n_tables + join->const_tables ;
i++)
spetrunia, why "i < n_tables + join->const_tables" ? isn't the number
of tables always the
Hello Igor,
Plese find the comments below.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:56:10PM -0700, Igor Babaev wrote:
> At file:///home/igor/maria/maria-5.3-mwl128-bug668290/
>
>
> revno: 2840
> revision-id: i...@askmonty.org-20101030195609-h53be2cd
Hi Philip,
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 03:34:41PM +0300, Philip Stoev wrote:
>> - Our chances of making Random Query Generator a little bit friendlier for
>> bug analyzers/fixers.
>
> Hi,
>
> Can you list specific issues that you are having or specific bug numbers
> that were not filed properly?
I
Hi Timour,
When one compiles 5.3, it produces the following warnings which I believe fall
into your turf. Could you please fix them:
item_subselect.cc: In member function ‘bool
subselect_rowid_merge_engine::init(MY_BITMAP*, MY_BITMAP*)’:
item_subselect.cc:4826: warning: ignoring return value of
Hi Philip,
The combined tree with DS-MRR improvements and MWL#128 is ready for testing. It
is located at lp:~maria-captains/maria/maria-5.3-mwl128-dsmrr-cpk/ .
I don't know how hard that is for you, but it would be useful to check the
failures
- against 5.3-main tree (to see whether the problem
Hello Igor,
Ok to push.
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 12:26:19PM -0700, Igor Babaev wrote:
> At file:///home/igor/maria/maria-5.3-mwl128/
>
>
> revno: 2845
> revision-id: i...@askmonty.org-20101103192618-17ii8dyn1h2qzdy8
> parent: i...@askmo
Ok to push.
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 08:36:33PM -0800, Igor Babaev wrote:
> At file:///home/igor/maria/maria-5.3-bug668644/
>
>
> revno: 2845
> revision-id: i...@askmonty.org-20101109043632-s053dbydv48cr9nz
> parent: mo...@askmonty.org-2
Hi Philip,
I've been fixing bugs in maria-5.3-mwl128-dsmrr-cpk tree, fixed two of the four
problems so far. My general impression is that crashes are easier to fix than
wrong results. Is it possible to run RQG in a mode that will cause it to ignore
the difference in query results, and stop only o
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 05:42:25PM +0300, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
> * EXPLAIN currently shows hash join as follows:
>
> MariaDB [hj1]> explain extended select * from t1 A, t2 B w
Hello Igor,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 02:17:13PM -0800, Igor Babaev wrote:
> Sergey,
>
> Please review this patch ASAP as this bug blocks Philip with testing.
> If you have any questions contact me by skype.
>
Ok to push after the comment below is addressed.
> Original Message
Hello Igor,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:04:24PM -0800, Igor Babaev wrote:
> Sergey,
>
> Please review this fix.
>
Ok to push after the irc feedback (lack of comments about JOIN_CACHE format) is
addressed.
>
> Original Message
> Subject: [Commits] Rev 2860: Fixed LP bug #67
Hi!
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 04:47:54PM +0200, Oleksandr Byelkin wrote:
> Preparation statement for PS looks like this (example uses prep_where,
> but we have the same problem for other parts stored in
> st_select_lex::fix_prepare_information()):
>
>
> ...
>conds->fix_fields(...&conds...) /
Hi Philip,
The new version of MWL#121-125, DS-MRR impovements, is ready for your testing.
I believe all previously reported crashes and wrong query result bugs are no
longer there (they've been either targeted and fixed, or were gone after code
re-working I've made when addressing review feedback
Hi Timour,
In Helsinki, we've noted the following:
> MWL#90: Subqueries: Inside-out execution for non-semijoin materialized
> subqueries in WHERE (4K diff); Critical task
> = Get the code reviewed/pushed
> TODO:
> - Timour will tell the "obvious things to improve"; Timour 1 day
I'm going t
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:34:05AM +0200, Philip Stoev wrote:
> I have a few questions with respect to the feature so that I can test it
> better (we may have discussed those previously but I can not seem to find
> the email):
>
> - apart from mrr_sort_keys ON and OFF and engine_condition_pushdo
Hello,
Below are some ideas on how to make DS-MRR/BKA easier to work with for the
users (= those who don't run mysqld under debugger). Questions are marked with
'Q:' but any comments are welcome.
Better EXPLAIN
--
Philip has complained numerous times that it is not shown in EXPLAIN wh
Added feedback provided by Igor over skype:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 06:31:52PM +0300, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
> Below are some ideas on how to make DS-MRR/BKA easier to work with for the
> users (= those who don't run mysqld under debugger). Questions are marked with
> 'Q:&#x
Hello Igor,
I was looking at sort-intersect and noticed the following: Consider this table:
CREATE TABLE `t1` (
`k1` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`k2` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
`filler` char(100) DEFAULT NULL,
KEY `k1` (`k1`),
KEY `k2` (`k2`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;
Let's try
Another question: why is type='range' for sort_intersect? We have
type=index_merge for intersect and [sort]_union, so it seems rather confusing
that we have type=range for sort_intersect?
- Forwarded message from Sergey Petrunya -
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:11:14 +0300
Fr
Hello,
index_merge uses @@sort_buffer_size as a guide of how much space it can use for
sorting. I think there is an issue with the way it is done.
Before index_merge was introduced, @@sort_buffer_size was used only by
filesort (also for couple of other cases like GROUP_CONCAT with sorting, but I
Hi!
Please find below results of my attempts to figure out
if/when one should "index_merge_sort_intersection=on" setting.
General setup information:
* Experiment was done on my laptop
* I picked "on time flight statistics" dataset, because
- it has lots of columns, so one can't be expected to h
Per Philip's request, details to replicate the dataset:
== Server settings ==
[mysqld]
innodb_file_per_table=1
innodb_file_format=barracuda
innodb_log_file_size=100M
== DDL ==
I based on Percona's DDL
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/10/02/analyzing-air-traffic-performance-with-infobright
Hello Philip,
One more note about correlated results: I agree that it's true that the
optimizer can't make a good choice if the data is correlated.
But since this is intersection, we could take this from other end: when
doing intersection scan, calculate utility of using extra indexes on the fl
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 09:16:58PM -0800, Igor Babaev wrote:
> I've just reported bug #611648 that probably explains the strange
> results I had when trying to run my benchmark queries for DS-MRR
> about which I talked at today's optimizer meeting.
>
I don't think that the posted queries sho
Hi!
Following the discussion of benchmarks of mrr_sort_keys=on|off functionality,
I've done a re-run. Please find the results below.
## Dataset: DBT-3, scale=10, xtradb,
## innodb_file_per_table=1
## innodb_file_format=barracuda
## innodb_log_file_size=256M
## innodb_buffer_pool_size=4
Hello Igor,
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 02:22:02PM -0700, Igor Babaev wrote:
> At file:///home/igor/maria/maria-5.3-mwl128-bug664508/
>
>
> revno: 2833
> revision-id: i...@askmonty.org-20101024212201-t8iius4jikcvm3zb
> parent: i...@askmonty
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 08:49:37PM -0800, Igor Babaev wrote:
> Hi Sergey,
>
> Please review this patch that fixes a defect of the current
> implementation of the mwl #128 that never couples hash join
> with range/index_merge scans.
> The patch also adds prefix #hash# to the names of the used hash
Hi Monty,
Please find attached the complete patch of MWL#90 for review. The tree with
the code is on launchpad/buildbot:
https://code.launchpad.net/~maria-captains/maria/5.3-subqueries-mwl90
http://buildbot.askmonty.org/buildbot/grid?branch=5.3-subqueries-mwl90
and it has no failures other than
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 03:20:13PM -0800, Igor Babaev wrote:
> >> === modified file 'sql/sql_select.cc'
> >> --- a/sql/sql_select.cc2011-02-06 04:57:03 +
> >> +++ b/sql/sql_select.cc2011-02-12 04:41:22 +
> > ...
> >> @@ -8419,6 +8438,11 @@
> >>sort_by_tab->type= JT_ALL;
Hi Timour,
Could you please review the below? (Asking you because the fix is in the loose
index scan optimizer)
- Forwarded message from Sergey Petrunya -
From: Sergey Petrunya
To: comm...@mariadb.org
X-Mailer: mail (GNU Mailutils 1.2)
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:59:00 +0300 (MSK
Hello Igor,
Could you please review the below:
- Forwarded message from Sergey Petrunya -
From: Sergey Petrunya
To: comm...@mariadb.org
X-Mailer: mail (GNU Mailutils 1.2)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 00:30:02 +0300 (MSK)
Subject: [Commits] Rev 2926: BUG#724275: Crash in JOIN::optimize in
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 06:03:38PM +0300, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:24:37PM +0300, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
> > Hi Monty,
> >
> > Please find attached the complete patch of MWL#90 for review. The tree with
> > the code is on la
Hello Igor,
Could you please review the below:
- Forwarded message from Sergey Petrunya -
From: Sergey Petrunya
To: comm...@mariadb.org
X-Mailer: mail (GNU Mailutils 1.2)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 00:17:53 +0300 (MSK)
Subject: [Commits] Rev 2929: BUG#693747: Assertion multi_range_read.cc
Hello Igor,
Could you please review the below:
- Forwarded message from Sergey Petrunya -
From: Sergey Petrunya
To: comm...@mariadb.org
X-Mailer: mail (GNU Mailutils 1.2)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:27:43 +0300 (MSK)
Subject: [Commits] Rev 2929: BUG#707925: Wrong result with
d comparison of a string with an integer that generates the
> above warning? Can we do without it? Why not to use char(4) instead
> if integer?
Got rid of string vs integer comparison, as well as simplified the testcase a
bit (further simplification is difficult). Please find the result below:
Hello Igor,
Here's the promised proof of deadcode:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 08:49:37PM -0800, Igor Babaev wrote:
> === modified file 'sql/sql_select.cc'
> --- a/sql/sql_select.cc 2011-02-06 04:57:03 +
> +++ b/sql/sql_select.cc 2011-02-12 04:41:22 +
> @@ -8419,6 +8438,11 @@
>
Hello Igor,
Could you please review the below? The bug page
https://bugs.launchpad.net/maria/+bug/727667 has verbose explanations of how we
ended up having this bug, as well as justifications for fixing it in this
particular way.
- Forwarded message from Sergey Petrunya -
From: Sergey
Hi Timour,
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 04:35:24PM +0200, tim...@askmonty.org wrote:
> At file:///home/tsk/mprog/src/5.3/
>
>
> revno: 2934
> revision-id: tim...@askmonty.org-20110308143512-0m7uotvxp9rmegak
> parent: pser...@askmonty.org-201
Hi Timour,
Ok to push.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:55:43PM +0300, tim...@askmonty.org wrote:
> At file:///home/tsk/mprog/src/5.3/
>
>
> revno: 2947
> revision-id: tim...@askmonty.org-20110328095536-wbmu1hiwsnhw6bs8
> parent: tim...@askm
Hello Igor,
First, an overall comment: there are lots of typos/coding style violations in
the patch. To reduce amount of effort spent on such things, I was just fixing
them as I saw them and I'm attaching the patch with all the fixes (i.e. this
patch should be applied on top of the patch that I w
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 03:08:12AM +0400, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
> Hello Igor,
>
> First, an overall comment: there are lots of typos/coding style violations in
> the patch. To reduce amount of effort spent on such things, I was just fixing
> them as I saw them and I'm atta
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 06:54:23PM -0700, Igor Babaev wrote:
> On 04/23/2011 05:26 PM, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 03:08:12AM +0400, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
> >> Hello Igor,
> >>
> >> First, an overall comment: there are lots of typos/codin
Hi Timour,
Congratulations on having pushed MWL#89 into 5.3-main! This is quite an
achievement which really moves us forward.
I've been studying the new code and has got some feedback which I thought
I need to share. Please find the notes below, marked with 'psergey'.
> diff -urN --exclude='.
Hi Timour,
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:10:44PM +0300, Timour Katchaounov wrote:
> Thank you for the review, you manged to spot a couple of real omissions/
> problems with the implementation. I implemented or responded to all your
> review suggestions except two. The two ones that I didn't implement
Hi Timour,
While merging, I also got the following questions:
== exclude_expensive_cond ==
make_cond_for_table()'s exclude_expensive_cond parameter is not used anymore.
Was it intentional that you kept it in the code?
(minimizing MWL#89's diff size could not be a reason because the diff changes
Hello,
This is to inform you that today I've pushed MWL#90 into 5.3-main. There was a
buildbot run on 5.3-subqueries-mwl90 tree before the push, and it did not show
any failures that weren't also present in 5.3-main.
The result of my merge has an issue that conceptually it is not a full merge,
b
Hi Sergei,
Current 5.3 fails as follows:
http://buildbot.askmonty.org/buildbot/builders/mac-mini-x86-dbg/builds/771/steps/compile/logs/stdio
g++ -DMYSQL_SERVER -DDEFAULT_MYSQL_HOME='"/usr/local/mysql"'
-DMYSQL_DATADIR='"/usr/local/mysql/var"'
-DSHAREDIR='"/usr/local/mysql/share/mysql"'
-DPLUGINDI
Hi!
All of the recent 5.3 builds in buildbot have two failures:
innodb_plugin.innodb_bug54044 'innodb_plugin'
innodb_plugin.innodb_information_schema 'innodb_plugin'
The failure happens only with innodb_plugin. XtraDB is fine.
I've investigated the first problem. Its cause is in
storage/xtradb
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 01:19:42PM +0400, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
> Hi!
>
> All of the recent 5.3 builds in buildbot have two failures:
>
> innodb_plugin.innodb_bug54044 'innodb_plugin'
The problematic changesets are:
revno: 3009 [merge]
revision-id: mo...@as
Hello,
Please find below descriptions of problems with current @@optimizer_switch
variable, as well as a proposal on how to fix it.
Problems with @@optimizer_switch
Proposed solution
Details about hooking this into parser
Alternate approach1: grouping
Problems with @@optimizer_switch
---
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:13:12PM +0400, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please find below descriptions of problems with current @@optimizer_switch
> variable, as well as a proposal on how to fix it.
>
Results of IRC discussion on June, 22 (as I interpret them):
Everyone
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:50:34PM +0200, Sergei Golubchik wrote:
> Hi, Sergey!
>
> On Jun 10, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Please find below descriptions of problems with current @@optimizer_switch
> > variable, as well as a proposal on how to fi
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 01:20:07AM +0200, Vladislav Vaintroub wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: maria-developers-
> > bounces+wlad=montyprogram@lists.launchpad.net [mailto:maria-
> > developers-bounces+wlad=montyprogram@lists.launchpad.net] On
&g
Hello Philip,
I'd like to get the tree at lp:~maria-captains/maria/5.3-subqueries-mwl90
tested for Duplicate Elimination with outer+semi-join processing.
I'm interested in crashes, as well as wrong query result bugs. The code path
that needs to be tested is selected with this @@optimizer_switch s
Hi Timour,
Ok to push.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 05:40:25PM +0300, tim...@askmonty.org wrote:
> At file:///home/tsk/mprog/src/5.3-mwl89/
>
>
> revno: 3062
> revision-id: tim...@askmonty.org-20110627144014-r14ahro6uzf77423
> parent: i...@
Hi Daniel,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 09:51:44AM -0400, Daniel Bartholomew wrote:
> We're getting closer to the first beta release of MariaDB 5.3 and
> several of the new features have been documented in the Knowledgebase
> and linked to from this page:
>
> http://kb.askmonty.org/en/what-is-mariadb-
Hello,
Following what has been decided on the optimizer call, I'm nearly done with
making semi-join optimizations off by default in 5.3. However, some of 5.3's
new optimizations are still turned on by default.
Here is a list of 5.3 features and flags that control them:
index_merge_sort_intersec
Hello Igor,
I've discovered the following:
Consider a testcase for https://bugs.launchpad.net/maria/+bug/803365.
There we have a query that's using a derived table that's on the inner side
of an outer join:
SELECT *
FROM t1
WHERE t1.f1 IN (
SELECT t2.f2
FROM t2
LEFT JO
Hi Timour,
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 03:40:49PM +0300, Timour Katchaounov wrote:
> Sergey
>
> Could you please review my fix for bug lp:802979.
> I need you specifically because I needed to touch
> the range optimzizer to disable evaluation of
> single-row subqueries.
>
> Please consider if I chose
Hi Timour,
Could you please review the below:
- Forwarded message from Sergey Petrunya -
From: Sergey Petrunya
To: comm...@mariadb.org
X-Mailer: mail (GNU Mailutils 1.2)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:43:12 +0400 (MSD)
Subject: [Commits] Rev 3096: BUG#778434 Wrong result with in_to_exists
Hello,
The below really should be in documentation, but for now, I'm posting it here:
Semi-join processing with Duplicate Elimination
===
There are three cases:
Semi-join next to outer join
ot1 left join (ot10, ot11) semi
Hi Sanja
A summary of our discussion on irc/skype:
Please change EXPCACHE_DISK_HITMISS_RATIO to be a "hit ratio", i.e "fraction
of accesses that result in cache hits", as that's this is the most common
number people use when they think about cache performance.
Please change one limit into two:
Hello,
The bug database has 197 bugs with status="Fix committed" and
target_milestone=5.3.
Since we've released 5.3, is it time to change status on these bugs to "Fix
released"?
BR
Sergey
--
Sergey Petrunia, Software Developer
Monty Program AB, http://askmonty.org
Blog: http://s.petrunia.net/
Hi Sanja,
Ok to push.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 05:10:29PM +0300, sa...@askmonty.org wrote:
> At file:///home/bell/maria/bzr/work-maria-5.3-subquerycachedisk/
>
>
> revno: 3135
> revision-id: sa...@askmonty.org-20110728141029-adkbj1vedh8
Hi Timour,
Ok to push.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 03:41:55PM +0300, tim...@askmonty.org wrote:
> At file:///home/tsk/mprog/src/5.3/
>
>
> revno: 3166
> revision-id: tim...@askmonty.org-20110823123915-jxf9hvxq2hy03rr7
> parent: tim...@askm
Hi Timour,
ok to push.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:00:29AM +0300, tim...@askmonty.org wrote:
> At file:///home/tsk/mprog/src/5.3/
>
>
> revno: 3165
> revision-id: tim...@askmonty.org-20110822210013-egubev0wgyi00wjt
> parent: i...@askmon
Hi Sergei,
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:55:40PM +0200, Sergei Golubchik wrote:
> Hi, Sergey!
>
> On Aug 23, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
> > MWL#182: Explain running statements
> > First code
> > - "Asynchronous procedure call" system
>
> I would lik
Hello,
When coding MWL#182, I've found out that it is very difficult to print
the same value of select_type as EXPLAIN does.
Problem description
---
Moreover, any attempt to unify EXPLAIN and SHOW EXPLAIN code cause numerous
test failures because of changed select_type.
http:/
Hi!
As discussed on the yesterday's call, we're starting to prepare for the
next 5.3 release, 5.3.2 beta. The intent is to build it on this or on the
next weekend.
Before the release, we need to do
1. Bugs
2. optimizer_switch changes.
3. Merge from mariadb-5.1
We don't need to address:
1. Pus
Hi Philip,
I've fixed/pushed all semi-join bugs. If I recall correctly, you intended to
do more semi-join testing, now everything is ready for it.
BR
Sergey
--
Sergey Petrunia, Software Developer
Monty Program AB, http://askmonty.org
Blog: http://s.petrunia.net/blog
___
Hi Sanja,
I was wondering if you have any progress with optimizer_switch default
settings change that we decided to do for the 5.3.2 release?
Any ETA on when that will be pushed?
BR
Sergey
--
Sergey Petrunia, Software Developer
Monty Program AB, http://askmonty.org
Blog: http://s.petrunia.net
Hi!
I've got several questions for our instance of buildbot:
Grid display (http://askmonty.org/buildbot/grid) is very nice, but it
would be even nicer if one could display only pushes into one particular
branch, like in pushbuild. Is it difficult to achieve? If not, can I request
it from somebody
Hi!
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:26:41PM -0700, Vadim Tkachenko wrote:
> What do you think about including patches
> global_trx_ids, binlog event checksums and fixes to crash-proof slaves
> from https://code.launchpad.net/~jtolmer/mysql-server/global-trx-ids
> into tree ?
Speaking in general (and
Hi Kristian,
I've got a branch with the code for MWL#17. Could you please add it to what
BuildBot builds?
Thanks,
Sergey
--
Sergey Petrunia, Software Developer
Monty Program AB, http://askmonty.org
Blog: http://s.petrunia.net/blog
___
Mailing list:
Hi Robert,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:45:08AM -0700, Robert Hodges wrote:
> This brings up a question for the Maria dev team-what are your plans, if
> any, for replication support in MariaDB? In particular, are there any
> plans that would affect binlog formats?
So far we don't have any planne
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:46:04PM +1000, Arjen Lentz wrote:
> Hi Sergey
>
> On 19/06/2009, at 8:12 PM, Sergey Petrunya wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:45:08AM -0700, Robert Hodges wrote:
>>> This brings up a question for the Maria dev team-what are your plans, if
Hi!
I've got this test failure in maria-5.1-table-elimination tree:
main.mysql-bug41486 [ fail ]
http://askmonty.org/buildbot/builders/jaunty-amd64-rel/builds/54/steps/test/logs/stdio
CURRENT_TEST: main.mysql-bug41486
--- .../r/mysql-bug41486.result
+++ .../r/mysql-bug41486
At file:///home/psergey/dev/maria-5.1-table-elim-emailcommittests/
revno: 2730
revision-id: pser...@askmonty.org-20090630181749-29kxcglcbfaiyygp
parent: pser...@askmonty.org-20090630180521-32redd6z13g9tluc
committer: Sergey Petrunya
At file:///home/psergey/dev/mysql-next/
revno: 2814
revision-id: pser...@askmonty.org-20090704004450-4pqbx9pm50bzky0l
parent: a...@sun.com-20090702085822-8svd0aslr7qnddbb
committer: Sergey Petrunya
branch nick: mysql-next
timestamp
1 - 100 of 343 matches
Mail list logo
