Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I bought a 1and1.es (Spain) Starter hosting plan for a small project we are starting. It only allows one database. I never imagined that to enable phpMyAdmin Designer (the graphical tab where you set relations between tables) you'd need to create another database. Of course, when I try to, I get an "access denied" error.
So, assuming I can't use phpMyAdmin, I haven't been able to find the right term to look for an alternative MySQL manager that has some kind of graphical relation creator. I just converted the tables to InnoDB and I have Relation View, but a totally-unskilled team has to work with it so we need visuals.
PS: I just saw I can pay 1$/month and have another database, so I might consider it (it'w low price, but feels useless having a 1GB database just for a silly database. I don't get why phpMyAdmin needs another database just for that).
Thank you
Why do you imagine that the phpMyAdmin configuration storage needs a separate database?
According to http://docs.phpmyadmin.net/en/latest/setup.html#phpmyadmin-configuration-storage,
"you need to create a set of special tables. Those tables can be located in your own database,"...
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed last year.
Improve this question
I have a program with a priority queue (PQ) so huge that it does not fit to the memory. It was decided to move some data to MySQL database (DB) in following way: the new elements are put into DB instead of PQ, and when the PQ is emptied, it is updated by the entries in the DB. But this way appeared to spoil the priority ordering. Is there any solution which does not corrupt the priority ordering and combines PQ with DB?
For some reason I cannot get rid of PQ and use only DB.
Your question is rather vague on the functionality, but I think the idea is wrong.
Someone seems to have the idea of using the database as secondary storage for an in-memory application. That doesn't really make much sense. Normally, you would use a simple file for this. Although you can use a database for managing secondary/tertiary storage, a database does many other things, so it is like using a smart phone only as a clock.
If you are going to use a database, then store the entire structure in the database and develop an API for it that meets your needs.
If you want help with how to structure the data, then write another question and include:
sample data
how the priority queue will be used
any ideas you have on the data structure
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Morning, we have 8 databases on our live server. I have created a new one on our test/development server. In MySQL Administrator I've backed up this new database to an SQL file, this file is on the new server. If I use "restore" in MySQL Administrator to create this database, will it affect the other databases that are there or will they carry on working as normal?
Is there a better way to do this?
The new DB is only a few k in size, the others contain many years of info and data and are huge. Any help appreciated
No, it won't. As you said that your DB is small it will not affect at all the other DB. It would if it was bigger, most probably it would slow dow your server a bit during the import (if it was bigger, huge to be precise), after the import the database will work normally. Of course it will share resource to keep one more instance working. And with time, it will make some difference in performance (depending on how big this DB grow). But you will have to be more concerned with hardware capabilities then the database itself.
Of course, I assume that when you say database you are saying about a new instance on your database.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am currently migrating a localhost MySQL database of quite some size to an AWS server with Oracle. I am using the SQL Developer tool with an installed add-on feature for MySQL support. The migration process is going quite slow and from the diagnostics tools it seems that the space on the server is reduced (sign of data transfer) every fourth hour.
Is this due to the diagnostic tool or any constaint added to the server?
If it is a constraint on the server, how can I remove this so data can be transferred faster?
I have now been migrating for about 40 hours and just 2 gigabytes are transferred. It seems like the transfers are performed every fourth hour.
Hard to tell from your post but are you using the migration wizard in SQL Developer? Is it an online or offline migration?
An online migration for a large database will be very slow, as it is literally rebuilding your database one row at a time, including integrity checks, redo generation, index building, etc.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
So the only method i like using and think is the simplest to use is mysqldump to backup mysql databases. Right now, im using phpmyadmin to backup the tables. Is there any way i can code a script that does it automatically (preferably everyday).
And how do i back up files exactly on my server. I have an images file that i need to back up. I'm not sure exactly how to go about backing those up.
Of course -- use MySQL Dumper. You can automatically backup your databases to another host if you like!
Features
Send dumpfiles via FTP to up to 3 different server. This is also working using the multipart feature.
Automatic file-deletion: set your own rules to delete old backups. Specify the number of backups you want to hold and let MySQLDumper automatically delete the older ones to save server webspace.
MySQLDumper can do Multipart-Backups. That means: it can automatically split the dumpfile if it gets bigger than your chosen size. When you want to restore a backup and choose the wrong part - it doesn' matter: MySQLDumper will notice that and will get the correct startfile automatically.
Security: MySQLDumper can generate a .htaccess-file to protect itself and all of your backup-files
Good reading resource for alternatives
10 Ways to Automatically & Manually Backup MySQL Database
Since Gary answered your first question, I'll answer your second.
For backing up the server:
I'm assuming you are talking about your web applications and the images contained in folders used by those applications. Source control will work for this. Set up a Subversion server or something like it.
http://subversion.tigris.org/
Hope this helps. Good luck.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I got an error with my Msaccess DB.
multiple users are using this DB's frontend. I do not know why I am getting this error message as follows
Error 3218 Could not update; currently locked
can someone help me please......
Get everybody out of their mdb files. Someone might be trying to update the same record. It might even be you, in another instance active on your PC.
The elephant in the room here is that multiple users are using the same front end. This is generally the first step down the road of access pain that often leads to access getting tarred with the “Access is not fit for more than 5 users” brush.
First thing is to get every user to have their own copy of the front end on their local drive. You can use the excellent access auto FE updater to make rolling out a new version easy
www.autofeupdater.com
This is weird. I got this error message because there was no enough space in the Shared drive, I just removed 1GB of some unneccessary files from the shared drive and the application works fine now.
But, took some time to figure it out.