Comment 16 for bug 576041
Revision history for this message
| Peter Zaitsev (pz-percona) wrote Re: [Bug 576041] Re: innodb_buffer_pool_pages_index performance | #16 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
> Then the blocking point will move to buf_pool->mutex simply, and the
> blocking time will be more longer...
>
>
Do we have to hold it for duration of full query ? This can be too long for
very large buffer pools.
>
> I will remove the column 'schema_name', 'table_name' and 'index_name' from
> INNODB_
> and add 'table_id' and 'index_id' to the view instead. And get rid of using
> dict_sys->mutex from the views.
>
>
OK fine.
> Anyway, such raw feature should not be used by amateur who don't know
> 'table_id' and 'index_id'.
> And the view is used for aggregate the count of the pages anyway?
> You should lookup name after the aggregation by using INNODB_SYS_TABLES,
> INNODB_SYS_INDEXES.
>
> --
>
--
Peter Zaitsev, CEO, Percona Inc.
Tel: +1 888 401 3401 ext 501 Skype: peter_zaitsev
24/7 Emergency Line +1 888 401 3401 ext 911
Percona Training Workshops
http://