From: Eric Bergen
Date: February 10 2005 11:12pm
Subject: Re: "show table status" extremely slow
List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/179739
Message-Id: <11b1bd99050210151233902bb7@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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=eric.bergen@stripped
> 
> 


-- 
Eric Bergen
eric.bergen@stripped
http://www.bleated.com