Truncate the time part of the datetime field when doing the compare
AND DATE_FORMAT(customer.created_dt, '%Y-%m-%d 00:00:00') BETWEEN '2008-12-30'
AND '2008-12-30'
Should work. Probably not the most efficient. The other options would be to
use take end date + 1 day, minue 1 second. That's e
A few weeks back I was reading an article that said that INNODB doesn't take
adantage of servers using more than 4 processors. I think I also recieved this
as a reply some time ago as to the same thing.
I was wondering if this is indeed true. We are using 5.1.30 and wanted to
pickup a new du
Jerry,
To touch a little more on Claudio's statement, you are trying to compare
monkey's and trucks when you talk about mysql on these two different OS's.
Microsoft is a different best when it comes to the install.
What caught my attention though is you are running mysql 4.0 on CentOS. Thi
Not sure that this is the problem BUT you should probably qualify the name of
the variable such that "SELECT MAX(id) AS id FROM book". But you don't want
"max(id) as id" but rather "max(id) + 1 as id". With that you can then just
return the final value. Also, if you don't want to alias the val
> Being rather new to all this, I understood from the MySql manual that
> the auto_increment is to b e used immediately after an insertion not
> intermittently. My application is for administrators (the site owner &
> designates) to update the database from and administration directory,
> accessed
We have a master/master environment that has tables in innodb. We want to
setup a slave that will be used for reporting and some other stuff as well. We
want to use MyISAM as the engine on the slave'd server.
Since all of the table creations are also part of the replication, is it
possible t
> You can set the default storage engine on each of the servers and then
> don't declare it explicitly in any CREATE TABLE statements.
This seems like the most viable option. Since almost all of the remote
tables are created with INNODB it should work fine. I do have one table
that isn't but we
We need to replicate a table to a third part. The information in the table is
pretty much public, with the exception of one column. Is it possible to
replicate all of the tables with the exception of one column?
What I was thinking was to replication it to a 2nd machine that will limit it
to
).
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Baron Schwartz
Sent: Tue 2/19/2008 5:15 PM
To: Gary W. Smith
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: Column level replication q?
Hi,
This isn't "natively" supported. You can hack it with replication to
a t
2/20/2008 1:19 AM
To: Gary W. Smith; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: R: Column level replication q?
Of course I am talking about a materialized view, did you try?
Here some useful links:
http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?100,21746,21746#msg-21746
and from the reply in the same forum topic
by W
n the other end, we don't even need to have the same table names. So
we can replicate it just like this with no problem.
Thanks for the links,
Gary
From: Nanni Claudio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 2/20/2008 1:19 AM
To: Gary W. Smith; mysql@lists
x27;t expect.
Gary
From: Michael Dykman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 2/21/2008 8:06 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Cc: Gary W. Smith; Baron Schwartz
Subject: Re: Column level replication q?
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Gary W. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Hello,
I've been looking through the documentation/list and haven't found anything
directly on this subject. It's possible that I'm just not looking in the right
place.
I would like to log all failed authentications to the server. It would be nice
to be able to log the attempted user name
Gail,
I know the list has already recommended allowing more connections but the
bigger question is what is sucking them all up. Even with 1000 connections
things like apache can only use the number of connections that there are
processes (* the number of connections used within each process)
Hello,
Just looking for a little feedback before deciding on a data engine path
and configuration.
We're working on an application that is expected to have a high growth
rate over the coming years. We're at the stage of designing the backend
databases to maximize performance while keeping costs
I'm working with two distinct databases on four different boxes.
Databases A on Server A needs to be present everywhere (Server B, C and
D). Database B needs to be present on Server C.
So I setup replication from Server A to Server B and Server D and then I
setup replication from Server B to Serv
> You should have:
> log-slave-updates
>
> on the slave/master host(s)
>
>
> Best regards,
> Irek Slonina
Irek,
Thanks for the follow up. Someone else has mentioned it but I just noticed
that it was offlist.
> Hi,
>
> on server B you need to set log-slave-updates to pass statements from
A
> over B to D.
>
> BTW: I can recommend you to use replicate-wild-do-table=db_name.*
> instead of replicate-do-db, otherwise statements with db prefix before
> tables won't replicate over B to D. RTM please
>
>
>
I have a string ("word word bob jack") such that I want to pass to the
store proc as a single entity,
split it in the store proc, and do a specific action for each word. Any
advice on how to do this? There is more going on that just that single
word so multiple calls isn't practical and they stri
> I have a string ("word word bob jack") such that I want to pass to the
> store proc as a single entity,
> split it in the store proc, and do a specific action for each word.
> Any
> advice on how to do this? There is more going on that just that
single
> word so multiple calls isn't practical an
I'm working on migrating an bunch of MyISAM tables over to InnoDB. For
development we want to use a fixed amount of space. So I have specified
10 100MB files in my.cnf. I started replicating data over but what I
can't tell is how much space I have left. Running show innodb status\G
shows a lot
> -Original Message-
> From: Gary W. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:01 PM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: InnoDB fixed file size, how much is left?
>
> I'm working on migrating an bunch of MyISAM tables over to In
> For what you described... you will not get a fixed size...
>
> If you have set file_per_table flag in my.cnf you might want to know
> that the .ibd files in the database directory are by default
> auto-extending... so those files WILL grow... along with your data...
>
> The shared tablespaces t
> > Select *
> > from group_mstr gm,group_payers gp
> > where gm.practice_id = '1'
> > and gp.location_id = '2'
> > and gp.practice_id =* gm.practice_id
> > and gp.group_id =* gm.group_id
> > order by gp.payer_id
>
> I bet =* is shorthand for an outer join (not sure if it's left or
> right). Yo
We have 4 development servers that are fairly configured the same way.
We have an admin account on each server using %" for the hostname. This
works on 3 of the 4 servers. The 4th server seems to do a lookup and
since the client machine (i.e. my workstation) isn't specifically
specified access is
> We have 4 development servers that are fairly configured the same way.
> We have an admin account on each server using %" for the hostname.
> This
> works on 3 of the 4 servers. The 4th server seems to do a lookup and
> since the client machine (i.e. my workstation) isn't specifically
> specifie
> select distinct
> TraderPersonalInfo.TraderID,PM2.PlatformID,PM4.PlatformID
> from TraderPersonalInfo,Locations,Platforms PF2,Platforms PF4,
> PlatformMap PM2,PlatformMap PM4
> where (TraderPersonalInfo.TraderID = PM2.TraderID)
> and (PM2.PlatformID = PF2.PlatformID)
> and PM2.PlatformID = 2
I have a set of tables that contain sensitive user information. I need
to use this data for validation BUT I don't want the end user to have
access to read this data. In MSSQL I used to be able to create a stored
proc to do the work (even though the user didn't have access to the
table). I was w
> Do you know about the "SQL SECURITY { DEFINER | INVOKER }" options to
> CREATE PROCEDURE? With them it should be possible to
> * deny selects to users on the tables
> * allow selects to users to this procedure
> * having the procedure itself working with the rights of root/definer
I did not, but
> The next question is what permissions do I need to give
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] to just access that one permission?
The sound of that thump thump thump is my head hitting the wall.
There is like a single small line in the GRANT section of the how to
that mentioned "TABLE|PROCEDURE|FUNCTIO" but none
> Better add "SQL SECURITY DEFINER" to it.
I noticed that it works with and without this. I have added it to the
procedure.
Another quick question though. Since I have added the end user that
will execute the procedure it works fine, until I drop the procedure and
recreate it then I have to rea
This is a follow-up to the earlier stored proc question.
I have a stored proc, with user level permissions for execute. If I
drop the stored proc and then create it again, the user level execute
permissions go away. What is the proper way to edit/alter a store proc
without losing these permissio
> I have an unusual problem. My current production server's OS is
corrupt
> and I'm building a new one. However, due to the corruption, I can't
> move files out of it. I have a "back door" through Zope, but I can
only
> move files of a certain size (I don't know how large ;). I need to
back
> up a
I could be wrong BUT...
> 1) Does increasing the number of replication slaves increase query
> latency on the master? We're considering tiering the replication if
> it might help - replicate the master to two slaves, each of which
> replicates to ten clients.
The slaves should only be pulling fr
> Also, what type of database are you using? INNODB? MyISAM? If you
> are
> running MyISAM then things can get slow on updates.
Sorry, I missed where you said you were using MyISAM.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.
I'm having trouble with a stored proc. The problem is that the first
table is in a different database. Here is the test stored proc below.
Where I run this I get " ERROR 1327 (42000): Undeclared variable: s". I
have tried it by declaring "clientdev.servers s" and just by using
"clientdev.server
> The table is MyISAM. I searched on google a bit for info on slow
> updates with MyISAM and didn't really hit it on the nose. Can I ask
> you to elaborate?
>
In /etc/my.cnf try adding:
long_query_time = 1
log-slow-queries=/var/lib/mysql/mysql-slow.log
Restart and then watch the file. If a a
> Inserts are of the form (updates are analogous):
>
> insert into dns_records (zone, host, data, ... )
> values ('domain.com', 'www', '1.2.3.4', ... );
>
> Queries are of the form:
>
> select ttl, type, mx_priority, case
> when lower(type)='txt' then
> concat('\"', dat
Mike,
Below is an message written a few months back tailing a discussion on
why MyISAM is and is not faster than InnoDB. Basically my understanding
is that if you have multiple simultaneous updates/inserts, stay away
from MyISAM.
We switched from MyISAM to InnoDB because of the concurrency is
> You SELECT statrment
> SELECT
> (s.server_disk_space * s.server_load * s.server_ram),
> s.server_fqdn,
> s.server_url,
> s.server_id
> INTO
> L_server_load,
> L_server_fqdn,
> L_server_url,
> L_server_id
> FROM clientdev.servers s
> WHERE s.active = 1
>
> for generating Statutory reports. Also cluster can not be a solution
as
> it
> requires min. 100 MB network.
Says who?
But clustering won't help. You are looking for active/active, which
could be accomplished but this would possibly lead to specific conflicts
if people are trying to edit the s
> Hello list
>
> I have doubt on TEXT data types... Checking my notes I see these ones:
>
> TINYTEXT/TINYBLOB (2^8) 255 chars
> TEXT/BLOB (2^16) 64K chars
> MEDIUMTEXT/MEDIUMBLOB (2^24) 16M chars
> LONGTEXT/LONGBLOB (2^32) chars
>
> Well, my doubt consist on this... are these FIXED lengths for t
42 matches
Mail list logo
