From: Reindl Harald Date: February 15 2013 11:07pm Subject: Re: Upgrading form mysql 5.0.90 to 5.5 or 5.6 List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/228992 Message-Id: <511EBFBD.9090201@thelounge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----enig2NPRBEETTAQGCUBSDOQLU" ------enig2NPRBEETTAQGCUBSDOQLU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable well, that is why i never in my life will dump and import large databases - never, for no money on the world backups of whole servers are done with replication and restored with rsync if needed but why in the world would someone export large datasets with dependencies to a PLAIN TEXTFILE and pray this is becoming a consistent database on any target? bseides the fact it takes years to import huge data from dumps - how do you make sure they are 100% clean after that Am 15.02.2013 23:59, schrieb Johnny Withers: > I can't even imagine an SQL dump of a 400GB database would restore anyw= ay. > How long would that take? 3 weeks? >=20 > Might want to dump the data to CSV files and the schema to an SQL file = if > you want a full dump/restore. >=20 > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Reindl Harald = wrote: >=20 >> "our database is 400 GB, mysqldump is 600MB" was not a typo and you >> honestly believed that you can import this dump to somewhat? >> >> WTF - as admin you should be able to see if the things in front >> of you are theoretically possible before your start any action >> and 1:400 is impossible, specially because mysql-dumps are >> ALWAYS WAY LARGER then the databasses because they contain >> sql-statements and not only data >> >> Am 15.02.2013 23:37, schrieb Mike Franon: >>> Your right I am going to run another mysqldump, maybe something >>> happened and pick this up next week.. >>> >>> Thanks all. >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Keith Murphy >> wrote: >>>> Something doesn't add up. If the data set is 400 GB then your dump h= as >> to >>>> bigger than 600 mb. That is better than a 400:1 ratio. Maybe the dum= p >> isn't >>>> working correctly or your data set is much smaller? If the dump outp= ut >> is >>>> less than a gig I would just edit it with something like vi and look= at >> the >>>> offending line. >>>> >>>> Keith >>>> >>>> On Feb 15, 2013 3:55 PM, "Mike Franon" wrote:= >>>>> >>>>> I am having a real hard time upgrading just from 5.0.96 to 5.1 >>>>> >>>>> I did a full mysqldump and then restore the database, keep in mind = our >>>>> database is 400 GB, mysqldump is 600MB file, about 30 minutes into = the >>>>> restore get this error on one table on an insert: >>>>> >>>>> ERROR 1064 (42000) at line 1388: You have an error in your SQL synt= ax; >>>>> check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for = the >>>>> right syntax to use near ''2010-04-10 20' at line 1 >>>>> >>>>> It weird because If I upgrade 5.1 right over 5.0 without doing a >>>>> mysqldump, and then do a mysqlcheck it works, except for 5 tables, = and >>>>> triggers, so trying to think of the best way to get to 5.1 >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Keith Murphy >> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> While it might be GA I would not recommend that you deploy it for = a >>>>>> while. >>>>>> ... at least several point releases. There will be new bugs uncove= red >> as >>>>>> it >>>>>> moves out to a wider audience. >>>>>> >>>>>> Upgrade to 5.5 (through 5.1) first as it is quite proven. Slave 5.= 6 >> off >>>>>> it >>>>>> and test. Be patient. Save yourself some heartache. Just my two ce= nts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Keith >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 15, 2013 9:27 AM, "Mike Franon" wrot= e: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks everyone for suggestions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am doing this on a test box with a copy of our db before doing= >> this >>>>>>> on production db servers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just upgraded from 5.0 to 5.1, and ran mysql_upgrade >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and see I have a few tables with the following error: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> error : Table upgrade required. Please do "REPAIR TABLE >>>>>>> `tablename`" or dump/reload to fix it! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I got this on 4 tables so far, but it still checking, my database= is >>>>>>> huge so might be a while. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The question I have what is the best way to fix this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To install all I did was remove all of the 5.0, and then did a yu= m >>>>>>> install 5.1 on my AWS machine. and then just started mysql. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should I instead do a complete mysqldump, and use that instead? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Rick James >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Sounds like something that, once discovered, can be fixed in the= old >>>>>>>> version >>>>>>>> -- then it works correctly in both. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is what happened with a 4.0->5.1 conversion years ago. Wit= h >>>>>>>> 1000 >>>>>>>> different tables and associated code, we encountered two >>>>>>>> incompatibilities. >>>>>>>> One had to do with NULLs, the other with precedence of commajoin= vs >>>>>>>> explicit >>>>>>>> JOIN. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Singer Wang [mailto:wang@stripped] >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:41 PM >>>>>>>> To: Rick James >>>>>>>> Cc: Mihail Manolov; Mike Franon; Akshay Suryavanshi; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Upgrading form mysql 5.0.90 to 5.5 or 5.6 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Its a very pedantic case, but we had a few instances where it wa= s an >>>>>>>> issue >>>>>>>> at my last job. It basically involved multi-table deletes and >>>>>>>> aliasing.. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> quote the change notes for MySQL 5.5.3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Incompatible Change: Several changes were made to alias resoluti= on >> in >>>>>>>> multiple-table DELETE statements so that it is no longer possibl= e to >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> inconsistent or ambiguous table aliases. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> =A7 In MySQL 5.1.23, alias declarations outside the table_refer= ences >>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the statement were disallowed for theUSING variant of multiple-t= able >>>>>>>> DELETE >>>>>>>> syntax, to reduce the possibility of ambiguous aliases that coul= d >>>>>>>> lead >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> ambiguous statements that have unexpected results such as deleti= ng >>>>>>>> rows >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> the wrong table. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now alias declarations outside table_references are disallowed f= or >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>> multiple-table DELETE statements. Alias declarations are permitt= ed >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> the table_references part. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Incorrect: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DELETE FROM t1 AS a2 USING t1 AS a1 INNER JOIN t2 AS a2; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DELETE t1 AS a2 FROM t1 AS a1 INNER JOIN t2 AS a2; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Correct: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DELETE FROM t1 USING t1 AS a1 INNER JOIN t2 AS a2; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DELETE t1 FROM t1 AS a1 INNER JOIN t2 AS a2; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> =A7 Previously, for alias references in the list of tables from= which >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> delete rows in a multiple-table delete, the default database is = used >>>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>> one is specified explicitly. For example, if the default databas= e is >>>>>>>> db1, >>>>>>>> the following statement does not work because the unqualified al= ias >>>>>>>> reference a2 is interpreted as having a database of db1: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> =A7 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> =A7 DELETE a1, a2 FROM db1.t1 AS a1 INNER JOIN db2.t2 AS a2 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WHERE a1.id=3Da2.id; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To correctly match an alias that refers to a table outside the >>>>>>>> default >>>>>>>> database, you must explicitly qualify the reference with the nam= e of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> proper database: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DELETE a1, db2.a2 FROM db1.t1 AS a1 INNER JOIN db2.t2 AS a2 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WHERE a1.id=3Da2.id; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now alias resolution does not require qualification and alias >>>>>>>> references >>>>>>>> should not be qualified with the database name. Qualified names = are >>>>>>>> interpreted as referring to tables, not aliases. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Statements containing alias constructs that are no longer permit= ted >>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> rewritten. (Bug #27525) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Rick James >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Singer, do you have some examples? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: Singer Wang [mailto:wang@stripped] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:59 PM >>>>>>>>> To: Mihail Manolov >>>>>>>>> Cc: Mike Franon; Akshay Suryavanshi; >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Upgrading form mysql 5.0.90 to 5.5 or 5.6 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are queries that works with 5.1/5.0 that do not work with= >> 5.5, >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> would test extensively.. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> S >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Mihail Manolov < >>>>>>>>> mihail.manolov@stripped> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You could jump from 5.0 directly to 5.5 and skip 5.1. I have >>>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>> any issues. There are some configuration file change, which yo= u >>>>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>> want to consider checking. I definitely recommend upgrading yo= ur >>>>>>>>>> development servers for an extensive testing. Some queries _ma= y_ >>>>>>>>>> run >>>>>>>>>> slower or not work at all and you may have to rearrange how yo= u >>>>>>>>>> join >>>>>>>>> tables in your queries. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The upgrade from 5.5 to 5.6 should me smoother, though. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 14, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Mike Franon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Great thanks for the info, I guess the best way to do this is= >>>>>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> spare server, set it up with our standard setup, and then sta= rt >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> upgrade as you said 5.0 -> 5.1 -> 5.5, test and then upgrade = to >>>>>>>>>>> 5.6 >>>>>>>>>>> and test ------enig2NPRBEETTAQGCUBSDOQLU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlEev70ACgkQhmBjz394AnkUNwCgiWwMo03aONrczxKapA1SWCex D40AnA/qgkwvg2BWfiFKZ5hQDPVeEMZ3 =kFWb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------enig2NPRBEETTAQGCUBSDOQLU--