List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:buford Date:March 11 2009 1:53am
Subject:Re: Concurrent Inserts with merged table
View as plain text  
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 12:10 PM,  <buford@stripped> wrote:
> Another way to find out whether this is the problem (yes, I know, you
> already answered this question ;-) is to set concurrent_insert=2 (see
> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/concurrent-inserts.html ).
>

No go. Setting concurrent_insert=2 appears to make absolutely no
difference and any scenario, i.e., it didn't even work as claimed for the
situation where there is free space in one or more of the merge table
union set. And it also made no difference for the other situation I was
probing where concurrent selects failed to work after one or more of the
union set constituent tables had been packed and then unpacked (and
repaired, and optimized, and flushed).

Kind of surprizing to think I'm the first to exercise these features.
Can't help but think I'm missing something.




Thread
Concurrent Inserts with merged tablebuford25 Feb
  • Re: Concurrent Inserts with merged tableJohan De Meersman25 Feb
    • Re: Concurrent Inserts with merged tablebuford26 Feb
      • Re: Concurrent Inserts with merged tablemos26 Feb
        • Re: Concurrent Inserts with merged tablebuford28 Feb
        • Re: Concurrent Inserts with merged tablebuford6 Mar
          • Re: Concurrent Inserts with merged tableBaron Schwartz6 Mar
            • Re: Concurrent Inserts with merged tablemos6 Mar
            • Re: Concurrent Inserts with merged tablebuford7 Mar
              • Re: Concurrent Inserts with merged tableBaron Schwartz7 Mar
                • Re: Concurrent Inserts with merged tablebuford7 Mar
                • Re: Concurrent Inserts with merged tablebuford11 Mar