Possibly moving to InnoDB

Bradley Baetz 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
> --regenerate.

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 mailing list