At 16:27 +0200 7/30/02, Daniel Brockhaus wrote:
>here's something everyone using variable length records (varchar,
>text, blob) should know:
>Create a table containing at least one blob:
>> create table db_test (
>> ID int not null,
>> vara blob,
>> primary key (ID)
>Insert two records:
>> insert db_test values(1,'');
>> insert db_test values(2,'');
>Now, keep updating the blobs, increasing their size by 16 bytes each time:
>> update db_test set vara='AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA' where ID=1;
>> update db_test set vara='BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB' where ID=2;
>> update db_test set vara='AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA' where ID=1;
>> update db_test set vara='BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB' where ID=2;
>> update db_test set
>>vara='AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA' where ID=1;
>> update db_test set
>>vara='BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB' where ID=2;
>Repeat this a few hundred times, then run myisamcheck -ci. You'll
>get (after 1000 iterations):
>Checking MyISAM file: db_test
>- check record links
>Records: 2 M.recordlength: 16008 Packed:
>Recordspace used: 100% Empty space: 0%
>Record blocks: 2002 Delete blocks: 0
>Record data: 32016 Deleted data: 0
>Lost space: 4 Linkdata: 22012
>Whoa. Each record has been split into 1000 (one thousand!) blocks.
>Reading one of these records would require 1000 reads from your
>harddisk. That's about 14 seconds to read a record of 16K length!
>(You might get lucky and get better values from the OS's read-ahead
>logic and disk cache.)
>Now sit back and marvel at the efficiency of mysql's dynamic record handling.
Use OPTIMIZE TABLE periodically to defragment your table.
>(Tested on mysql 3.23.33 and 3.23.41, known not to be fixed in the
>I know this is a worst-case scenario. But still: I was using a table
>with blobs of changing size, and this table was getting slower and
>slower over time, at a rate of 100% per week.
>You can work around the problem by making sure that your records
>change size as seldom as possible. One way to do this is to add
>another blob and change its size as needed to keep the total record
>length constant. This would fix the problem, but it adds a lot of
>overhead to the application, and it is doing something on
>application level that the database should do.
>What I'd like to have is an addition to the myisam table handler
>(and possibly to the other table handlers too, if those have the
>same problem) which allows you to set the minimum block size mysql
>will allocate for any record. That is, if you set that value to 512,
>every block allocated would be of 512, 1024, 1536, ... bytes length.
>If this was added and you'd use a minimum block size of 512, the
>above example would have created 32 blocks for each record. Still
>bad, but a hell of a lot of an improvement over the 1000 without it.
>Does anybody know whom I have to write to ask for this to be added?
>I apologize for the lengthy post, the bad english and the sarcasm.