My experience with innodb is that show table status is slow. It's
better to do show table status like 'my_table'
-Eric
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:47:41 -0500, Zhe Wang <zwang@stripped> wrote:
> Hi, there,
>
> We have a huge database (84 tables of about 360 G of data in MyISAM
> tables). Recently, we converted the entire database to InnoDB (in one
> table space) and set up replication. Then we experienced some slower
> performance.
>
> For example, "show table status" on the master took more than 90
> seconds if the database connection was made from local server, and
> terribly 400 seconds if the connection was from a remote server. At the
> moment "show table status" was issued, there were about 5 other queries
> running.
>
> However, if the test was done on the slave, "show table status"
> took approximately 90 seconds for each of the connections from the local
> and remote servers, while only the slave thread was running in the
> meanwhile.
>
> Our questions are:
> 1. Is "show table status" generally extremely slow for InnoDB tables?
> 2. Does connection from the local or remote server affect the speed of
> "show table status"?
> 3. Does the fact one server a master another a slave affect the speed of
> "show table status"?
>
> Your reply would be greatly appreciated! Thank you in advance.
>
> Regards,
> Zhe
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
>
>
--
Eric Bergen
eric.bergen@stripped
http://www.bleated.com
