List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Johan De Meersman Date:November 30 2010 6:19am
Subject:Re: INSERT DELAYED and logging
View as plain text  
No, I think it's a good idea to do INSERT DELAYED here - it's only logging
application, and it's generally more important to not slow down the
application for that. It's only ever into a single table, so there's only
going to be a single delay thread for it anyway.

Archive tables are a good idea, agreed, but I suspect that inserts into that
are going to be slower than into regular MyISAM because of the compression,
so why not use that overhead to (slightly) speed up your end-user experience
instead ?

You can always partition the table based on the log date or whatever, if
your table risks getting too big.


On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Wagner Bianchi
<wagnerbianchijr@stripped>wrote:

> Well,  analyze if you need to create an excessive overhead into the MySQL
> Server because a simple INSERT. What you must have a look is it:
>
>   - How much data this connection is delivering to MySQL's handlers?
>   - A word DELAYED in this case is making MySQL surfer?
>
> Perhaps, you are sophisticating something that do not need it. Besides it,
> analyzing your "log table", I imagine this table can be an Archive table
> instead of MyISAM. Log tables or history tables can be controlled by
> Archive
> Storage Engine to have more compressed data. Although, Archive Storage
> Engine only supports SELECT and INSERT. Maybe, a good deal to you, get rid
> of you INSERT DELAYED:
>
>
>   - ALTER TABLE <tbl_name> ENGINE = ARCHIVE;
>
>
> Best regards.
> --
> WB
>
>
> 2010/11/29 WLGades <WLGades@stripped>
>
> > I'm adding a table to our site that logs all page loads.  In the past,
> when
> > I built this, I used MyISAM and INSERT DELAYED.  I went back to look at
> the
> > documentation to see if I should still do this, and saw this (taken from
> > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/insert-delayed.html):
> >
> > Note that INSERT DELAYED is slower than a normal INSERT if the table is
> not
> > otherwise in use. There is also the additional overhead for the server to
> > handle a separate thread for each table for which there are delayed rows.
> > This means that you should use INSERT DELAYED only when you are really
> sure
> > that you need it.
> >
> > Does that mean that I shouldn't use it if all I'm doing is INSERT
> > (essentially an append-only table), with only very occasional SELECTs?
>  In
> > addition, the last time I took this approach for logging, it worked well
> > until the table got to 65M+ rows, when it would crash every now and then.
> >  I
> > know I can archive off the table on a per month/quarter basis as well.
> >
> > Waynn
> >
>



-- 
Bier met grenadyn
Is als mosterd by den wyn
Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel

Thread
INSERT DELAYED and loggingWLGades30 Nov
  • Re: INSERT DELAYED and loggingWagner Bianchi30 Nov
    • Re: INSERT DELAYED and loggingJohan De Meersman30 Nov
      • Re: INSERT DELAYED and loggingWLGades30 Nov
        • Re: INSERT DELAYED and loggingJohan De Meersman30 Nov
          • Re: INSERT DELAYED and loggingWagner Bianchi30 Nov
            • Re: INSERT DELAYED and loggingWagner Bianchi30 Nov
              • Re: INSERT DELAYED and loggingJohan De Meersman30 Nov
                • Re: INSERT DELAYED and loggingWagner Bianchi30 Nov
                  • Re: INSERT DELAYED and logging杨涛涛23 Dec
                    • Re: INSERT DELAYED and loggingAlejandro Bednarik23 Dec