List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Michael Widenius Date:January 7 2000 12:19am
Subject:Re: CONCURRENT_INSERT?
View as plain text  
>>>>> "elble" == elble  <elble@stripped> writes:

Steven> I think the update to 23.8 and the breaking the tables will let us survive
Steven> the next 2-3 months. :)
>> 
>> By then we should have the option of using the new transactions safe
>> tables, which in effect gives you page locks.
>> 
>> Do you use fixed record-size or variable record-size tables?
>> For fixed size tables it would be quite easy to add insert even on
>> deleted slots which would of course give you dirty reads, but you can
>> maybe live with this?  In this case we probably need something like
>> INSERT DIRTY for this kind of inserts.

elble> <cry from the peanut gallery>

elble> i used fixed record-size tables and could benefit from this immensely 
elble> (REPLACE/INSERT DIRTY)!

elble> in this scenario would DIRTY be mutually exclusive of DELAYED?

No.  It shouldn't be any problems with using INSERT DIRTY DELAYED.

The problem is that I don't think we will have time to look at this
real soon (just too much to do before the PHP developers meeting)...

Regards,
Monty
Thread
CONCURRENT_INSERT?Dylan Neild13 Dec
  • Re: CONCURRENT_INSERT?sinisa13 Dec
  • Re: CONCURRENT_INSERT?Tonu Samuel14 Dec
  • CONCURRENT_INSERT?Michael Widenius5 Jan
    • Re: CONCURRENT_INSERT?Tim Bunce5 Jan
      • Re: CONCURRENT_INSERT?Michael Widenius5 Jan
        • Re: CONCURRENT_INSERT?Tim Bunce5 Jan
        • RE: CONCURRENT_INSERT?Steven Roussey6 Jan
          • RE: CONCURRENT_INSERT?sinisa6 Jan
          • RE: CONCURRENT_INSERT?Michael Widenius6 Jan
            • Re: CONCURRENT_INSERT?elble6 Jan
              • Re: CONCURRENT_INSERT?Michael Widenius7 Jan
RE: CONCURRENT_INSERT?Andy6 Jan