Hi I am using Mysql 5.0.x
I have just changed a lot of the tables from MyISAM to InnoDB
With the MyISAM tables it took about 1 minute to install our database
With the InnoDB it takes about 15 minute to install the same database
Why does the InnoDB take so long?
What can I do to speed things up?
The Database install does the following steps
1) Drops the schema
2) Create the schema
3) Create tables
4) Create stored procedures
5) Insert default data
6) Insert data via stored procedure
EDIT:
The Inserting of default data takes most of the time
Modify the Insert Data step to start a transaction at the start and to commit it at the end. You will get an improvement, I guarantee it. (If you have a lot of data, you might want to break the transaction up to per table.)
If you application does not use transactions at all, then you should set the paramater innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit to 2. This will give you a lot of performance back because you will almost certainly have auto_commit enabled and this generates a lot more transactions than InnoDB's default parameters are configured for. This setting stops it unnecessarily flushing the disk buffers on every commit.
15 minutes doesn't seem excessive to me. After all, it's a one-time cost.
I'm not certain, but I would imagine that part of the explanation is the referential integrity isn't free. InnoDB has to do more work to guarantee it, so of course it would take up more time.
Maybe your script needs to be altered to add constraints after the tables are created.
Like duffymo said, disable your constraints(indexes and foreing/primary keys) before inserting the data.
Maybe you should restore some indexes before the data inserted via stored procedure, if its use a lot of select statements
Related
Our server database is in mysql 5.1
we have 754 tables in our db.We create a table for each project. Hence the large no of tables.
From past one week i have noticed a very long delay in inserts and updates to any table.If i create a new table and insert into it,It takes one min to insert around 300 recs.
Where as our test database in the same server has 597 tables Same insertion is very fast in test db.
Default engine is MYISAM. But we have few tables in INNODB .
There were a few triggers running. After i deleted triggers it has become some what faster. But it is not fast enough.
USE DESCRIBE to know your query execution plans.
Look more at http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/explain.html for its usage.
As #swapnesh mentions, the DESCRIBE command is very usefull for performance debugging.
You can also check your installation for issues using:
https://raw.github.com/rackerhacker/MySQLTuner-perl/master/mysqltuner.pl
You use it like this:
wget https://raw.github.com/rackerhacker/MySQLTuner-perl/master/mysqltuner.pl
chmod +x mysqltuner.pl
./mysqltuner.pl
Of course, here I am assuming that you run some kind of a Unix based system.
You can use OPTIMIZE. According to Manual it does the following:
Reorganizes the physical storage of table data and associated index
data, to reduce storage space and improve I/O efficiency when
accessing the table. The exact changes made to each table depend on
the storage engine used by that table
The syntax is:
OPTIMIZE TABLE tablename
Inserts are typically faster when made in bulk rather than one by one. Try inserting 10, 30, or 100 records per statement.
If you use jdbc you may be able to achieve the same effect with batching, without changing the SQL.
I'm trying to convert a 10million rows MySQL MyISAM table into InnoDB.
I tried ALTER TABLE but that made my server get stuck so I killed the mysql manually. What is the recommended way to do so?
Options I've thought about:
1. Making a new table which is InnoDB and inserting parts of the data each time.
2. Dumping the table into a text file and then doing LOAD FILE
3. Trying again and just keep the server non-responsive till he finishes (I tried for 2hours and the server is a production server so I prefer to keep it running)
4. Duplicating the table, Removing its indexes, then converting, and then adding indexes
Changing the engine of the table requires rewrite of the table, and that's why the table is not available for so long. Removing indexes, then converting, and adding indexes, may speed up the initial convert, but adding index creates a read lock on your table, so the effect in the end will be the same. Making new table and transferring the data is the way to go. Usually this is done in 2 parts - first copy records, then replay any changes that were done while copying the records. If you can afford disabling inserts/updates in the table, while leaving the reads, this is not a problem. If not, there are several possible solutions. One of them is to use facebook's online schema change tool. Another option is to set the application to write in both tables, while migrating the records, than switch only to the new record. This depends on the application code and crucial part is handling unique keys / duplicates, as in the old table you may update record, while in the new you need to insert it. (here transaction isolation level may also play crucial role, lower it as much as you can). "Classic" way is to use replication, which, as far as I know is also done in 2 parts - you start replication, recording the master position, then import dump of the database in the second server, then start it as a slave to catch up with changes.
Have you tried to order your data first by the PK ? e.g:
ALTER TABLE tablename ORDER BY PK_column;
should speed up the conversion.
Currently we have a database and a script which has 2 update and 1 select, 1 insert.
The problem is we have 20,000 People who run this script every hour. Which cause the mysql to run with 100% cpu.
For the insert, it's for logging, we want to log all the data to our mysql, but as the table scale up, application become slower and slower. We are running on InnoDB, but some people say it should be MyISAM. What should we use? In this log table, we do sometimes pull out the log for statistical purpose. 40->50 times a day only.
Our solution is to use Gearman [http://gearman.org/] to delay insert to the database. But how about the update.
We need to update 2 table, 1 from the customer to update the balance(balance = balance -1), and the other is to update the count from another table.
How should we make this faster and more CPU efficient?
Thank you
but as the table scale up, application become slower and slower
This usually means that you're missing an index somewhere.
MyISAM is not good: in addition to being non ACID compliant, it'll lock the whole table to do an insert -- which kills concurrency.
Read the MySQL documentation carefully:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/insert-speed.html
Especially "innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit" -
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb-parameters.html
I would stay away from MyISAM as it has concurrency issues when mixing SELECT and INSERT statements. If you can keep your insert tables small enough to stay in memory, they'll go much faster. Batching your updates in a transaction will help them go faster as well. Setting up a test environment and tuning for your actual job is important.
You may also want to look into partitioning to rotate your logs. You'd drop the old partition and create a new one for the current data. This is much faster than than deleting the old rows.
We have an update process which currently takes over an hour and means that our DB is unusable during this period.
If I setup up replication would this solve the problem or would the replicated DB suffer from exactly the same problem that the tables would be locked during the update?
Is it possible to have the replicated DB prioritize reading over updating?
Thanks,
D
I suspect that with replication you're just going to be dupolicating the issue (unless most of the time is spent in CPU and only results in a couple of records being updated).
Without knowing a lot more about the scema, distribution and size of data and the update process its impossible to say how best to resolve the problem - but you might get some mileage out of using innodb instead of C-ISAM and making sure that the update is implemented as a number of discrete steps (e.g. using stored procuedures) rather than a single DML statement.
MySQL gives you the ability to run queries delaye. Example: "INSERT DELAYED INTO...", this will cause the query to only be executed when MYSQL has time to take the query.
Based on your input, it sounds like you are using MyISAM tables, MyISAM only support table-wide locking. That means that a single update will lock the whole database table until the query is completed. InnoDB on the other hand uses row locking, which will not cause SELECT queries to wait(hang) for updates to complete.
So you have the best chances of a better sysadmin life if you change to InnoDB :)
When it comes to replication it is pretty normal to seperate updates and selects to two different MySQL servers, and that does tend to work very well. But if you are using MyISAM tables and does a lot of updates, the locking issue itself will still be there.
So my 2 cents: First get rid of MyISAM, then consider replication or a better scaled MySQL server if the problem still exists. (The key for good performance in MySQL is to have at least the size of all indexes across all databases as physical RAM)
One of the portion of my site requires bulk insert, it takes around 40 mins for innodb to load that file into database. I have been digging around the web and found few things.
innodb_autoinc_lock_mode=2 (It wont generate consecutive keys)
UNIQUE_CHECKS=0; (disable unique key checks)
FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=0 (disable foreign key checks)
--log_bin=OFF turn off binary log used for replication
Problem
I want to set first 3 options for just one session i.e. during bulk insert. The first option does not work mysql says unknown system variable 'innodb_autoinc_lock_mode'. I am using MySQL 5.0.4
The last option, I would like to turn it off but I am wondering what if I need replication later will it just start working if I turn it on again?
Suggestions
Any other suggestions how to improve bulk inserts/updates for innodb engine? Or please comments on my findings.
Thanks
Assuming you are loading the data in a single or few transactions, most of the time is likely to be spent building indexes (depending on the schema of the table).
Do not do a large number of small inserts with autocommit enabled, that will destroy performance with syncs for each commit.
If your table is bigger (or nearly as big as) the innodb buffer pool you are in trouble; a table which can't fit in ram with its indexes cannot be inserted into efficiently, as it will have to do READS to insert. This is so that existing index blocks can be updated.
Remember that disc writes are ok (they are mostly sequential, and you have a battery-backed raid controller, right?), but reads are slow and need to be avoided.
In summary
Do the insert in a small number of big-ish transactions, say 10k-100k rows or each. Don't make the transactions too big or you'll exhaust the logs.
Get enough ram that your table fits in memory; set the innodb buffer pool appropriately (You are running x86_64, right?)
Don't worry about the operation taking a long time, as due to MVCC, your app will be able to operate on the previous versions of the rows assuming it's only reading.
Don't make any of the optimisations listed above, they're probably waste of time (don't take my word for it - benchmark the operation on a test system in your lab with/without those).
Turning unique checks off is actively dangerous as you'll end up with broken data.
To answer the last part of your question, no it won't just start working again; if the inserts are not replicated but subsequent updates are, the result will not be a pretty sight. Disabling foreign and unique keys should be OK, provided you re-enable them afterwards, and deal with any constraint violations.
How often do you have to do this? Can you load smaller datasets more frequently?