maria-discuss team mailing list archive

[Roberto Spadim <roberto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ok =]
some minutes to download and after start compile and tests
if i not answer soon i got some other job, but i will get back =]

2014-09-23 15:34 GMT-03:00 kentoku <kentokushiba@xxxxxxxxx>:

> >> hi kentoku! i will try with mysql server
> >> but i got one question, why mariadb don't support VP? is something
> >> different that block using VP ?
>
> It is need some changes for MariaDB.
>
> > now i saw 10.0.9 at 'last' name, i will try it :)
>
> Please use this for now.
> source code
>
> http://spiderformysql.com/downloads/spider-3.2/mariadb-10.0.13-spider-3.2-vp-1.1-mroonga-4.05a.tgz
> binary for linux x86_64
>
> http://spiderformysql.com/downloads/spider-3.2/mariadb-10.0.13-spider-3.2-vp-1.1-mroonga-4.05-linux-x86_64-glibc25a.tgz
>
> Thanks,
> Kentoku
>
>
> 2014-09-24 3:06 GMT+09:00 Roberto Spadim <roberto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> https://launchpad.net/vpformysql/trunk/1.1-for-5.5.34-10.0.9/+download/vp-src-1.1-for-5.5.34-10.0.9.tgz
> >
> > now i saw 10.0.9 at 'last' name, i will try it :)
> > news i post here
> >
> > 2014-09-23 14:54 GMT-03:00 Roberto Spadim <roberto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> >> hi kentoku! i will try with mysql server
> >> but i got one question, why mariadb don't support VP? is something
> >> different that block using VP ?
> >>
> >> 2014-09-23 14:44 GMT-03:00 kentoku <kentokushiba@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >>
> >>> Hi Roberto,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for testing VP.
> >>> I'll think about this feature.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Kentoku
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2014-09-21 18:10 GMT+09:00 Roberto Spadim <roberto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >>> > Hi! Well i'm checking vp isn't part of mariadb today :/ maybe we
> should
> >>> > port
> >>> > it first and after jmplement new features, right?
> >>> >
> >>> > Em domingo, 21 de setembro de 2014, Oleksandr Byelkin
> >>> > <sanja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Hi!
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On 21.09.14 05:06, Roberto Spadim wrote:
> >>> >> [skip]
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> sounds crazy? :)
> >>> >>> ok i know that query cache have some problems with mutex, but it's
> >>> >>> another history we could have a better hit rate with this feature
> (at
> >>> >>> least
> >>> >>> when correctly used)
> >>> >>> check that query cache become inconsistent if we change data1 or
> >>> >>> data2
> >>> >>> outside vp table
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> It is doable if put a lot of hooks of asking engine about tables.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> There is already hooks now used in table invalidation. But it works
> >>> >> slowly
> >>> >> (relatively) because having no open table difficult to give engine
> >>> >> full
> >>> >> information and so each such hook will cause semi-open process and
> so
> >>> >> if we
> >>> >> have miss it looks like double opening overhead.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> So, in price of total overhead we can make it, the question is if it
> >>> >> help
> >>> >> so much that gain will be more then overhead in average... As usual
> I
> >>> >> have
> >>> >> doubts about it (need a proof).
> >>> >>
> >>> >> [skip]
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Roberto Spadim
> >>> > SPAEmpresarial
> >>> > Eng. Automação e Controle
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Roberto Spadim
> >> SPAEmpresarial
> >> Eng. Automação e Controle
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Roberto Spadim
> > SPAEmpresarial
> > Eng. Automação e Controle
>



-- 
Roberto Spadim
SPAEmpresarial
Eng. Automação e Controle