maria-discuss team mailing list archive

[Pierre <pierz@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ok I understand, but this doesn't resolve the initialization problem, I'm sure there is a bug, or 
something which can be improved a lot. I can't use the UNIQUE constraint when I have to much key 
which doesn't fit in RAM.

Because even If have memcache/bloom filter in front, I still need to create my initial dataset with 
the unique constraint,and even if my initial dataset is unique, I can't insert them in my table 
because of the bug explained before.

If mysql can do a sort so quickly (create index), it should be trivial to reuse this sorted data, 
eliminate the duplicate and create the UNIQUE index.


Le 12/02/2014 09:24, Justin Swanhart a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> This is not a bug, but how b tree indexes work.  For them to be efficient they must fit in ram.
>   There are buffering mechanisms that can be used for secondary indexes in some cases, because the
> write can be done without a read, but ONLY when the index is not unique.  It if it unique, then the
> index dive is necessary and a btree traversal can take multiple random IO to get to the leaf node.
>
> Faster IO can help, so you can look into flash storage.
>
> Consider fronting your lookups with memcache (a hash index) or a bloom filter (there are many
> implementations on the net) to reduce lookups.
>
> --Justin

Le 12/02/2014 09:04, Pierre a écrit :
> Using this technique I have the same Issue. It's now running for severals hours, I'm at a 40% and
> looking at show full processlist, it's getting slower and slower. It will never finish.
>
> I think there is a bug here.
>
> Firstly, regardly the memory usage, It doesn't correctly use the buffer I did set, I think it's only
> using the key_buffer_size. myisam_sort_buffer_size or bulk_insert_buffer_size are not used on this
> task.
>
> So what's happening ? When the RAM is full, mariadb is doing random access on the disk to sort and
> filter Go of data ! That's why my cpu was only used a few percent, the process was in i/o wait most
> of the time.
>
> So what I am saying here is : mariadb can't crate UNIQUE keys/index if the rows doesn't fit in RAM.
>
> However if I try to create a standard index (ie non unique), it works well and it's done in less
> than an hour.
>
> ALTER IGNORE TABLE mytable ADD INDEX (c1), ADD INDEX(c2);
> Query OK, 349086532 rows affected (44 min 25.21 sec)
> Records: 349086532  Duplicates: 0  Warnings: 0
>
> In this second usage case, Maria is doing a good work by using the myisam_sort_buffer_size. I think
> it's doing something like an external/merge sort, spliting the rows in part that fit in RAM, sorting
> them, merging them and creating index.
>
> It was 100% cpu most of the time, when It was not it was because mysql was loading the rows in RAM
> from hard disk (and not doing a random access on the hard disk like in create unique index). So why
> UNIQUE index is not behaving the same way ?
>
> It's easy to reproduce the bug, just create a binary file of 2 or 3 x size of RAM, then load data
> infile and try to create a UNIQUE index on it. It will never end.
>
>  >Am 10.02.2014 13:45, schrieb Pierre:
>  >> Mariadb is getting slower and slower when I'm inserting a massive amout of data. I'm trying to
> insert 166 507 066
>  >> rows (12go) using load data infile '' into an empty table. I splitted my file in 13 parts of the
> same size because
>  >> it was too long to insert in one shot. When I inserted more than 100M rows, it starts to be
> extremely slow.
>  >
>  >he reason are the permamently updated keys
>  >in general for large inserts on a new table
>  >
>  >UNIQUE KEY `p1` (`p1`),
>  >UNIQUE KEY `p2` (`p2`),
>  >
>  >* remove keyes
>  >* insert data
>  >* add kyes
>  >
>  >https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/insert-speed.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss
> Post to     : maria-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp