Possibly moving to InnoDB
bbaetz at acm.org
Sun Aug 6 07:16:40 UTC 2006
On 06/08/06, Max Kanat-Alexander <mkanat at bugzilla.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 22:29 +1000, Bradley Baetz wrote:
> > > Okay. In many cases, that would actually be fine for us, as long as the
> > > timeout is long enough. MySQL would just be automatically killing the
> > > long-running queries that we kill by hand in places like bmo.
> > It can be tweaked; I forget what the default is. But it doesn't kill
> > the *running* query - it kills the blocking one. (All together now -
> > eww!)
> But wait, that makes sense. You mean if a SELECT is blocking everybody
> else from running, it kills the SELECT, right?
No. It kills the other one - ie the one that is not running.
> > in a transaction. This takes up to 15-20 minutes to run, pulling a few
> > hundred thousand rows each time.
> Thankfully nothing in Bugzilla does that, except for collectstats.pl
Yeah, but I've had it happen with concurrent update/delete. We 'fixed'
it by changing delete to select first then delete if there was a match
> Okay. So we should recommend that if people are going to use
> replication, they use at least 4.1.11 or 5.0.3.
It still doesn't help, though - it just makes it less likely, since by
incresing the time before theres an error, you've decreased the number
of times an error will occur.
More information about the developers