meta user
network profile
| bio | website | androblip.huiges.nl |
|---|---|---|
| location | Groningen, Netherlands | |
| age | 32 | |
| visits | member for | 1 year, 8 months |
| seen | May 21 at 11:45 | |
| stats | profile views | 4 |
Coder by profession and hobby, interested in skepticism, photography, Android and stuff. Especially stuff. I like stuff.
For those interested: Next to the androblip app (application for the photo-blog site www.blipfoto.com), I build a small LiveView (you know, the nerdy watch thingy by Sony Ericsson) plugin so you can get GMail notifications. Check my site here or Check it in the market
|
Apr 9 |
awarded | Commentator |
|
Apr 9 |
comment |
Mysql query is very slow There is probably something to say for actually sharing the EXPLAIN? |
|
Apr 9 |
accepted | Changing TEXT to VARCHAR |
|
Apr 9 |
comment |
Changing TEXT to VARCHAR I'm not really getting all the information from your links right: you mean to underline the thought my text column will be saved "withing the page" as they are not really big, so a change to varchar will not help? |
|
Apr 9 |
asked | Changing TEXT to VARCHAR |
|
Feb 16 |
comment |
Do I need a locking read? The problem is, I'm not doing this a lot of times, but it is being done concurrently. So maybe this function will run a couple of hundred times per day, but possibly 2 times per someID. I don't have a prefab list, as the requests happen seperatly. And that's where the problem is. someID is not unique, so the ingore doesn't help. The roundtrips are not a problem by the way, it has virtually no impact on the system. I think I might get away with trying to do it all in one query, but this will get tricky because of the non-uniqueness. I did find something I think, but need to check it first. |
|
Feb 15 |
comment |
Do I need a locking read? What I basically want is "other threads shouldnt insert this row until I'm done with my work". Should I lock the complete table? I only want to lock inserting that one row... |
|
Feb 15 |
revised |
Do I need a locking read? added 291 characters in body |
|
Feb 15 |
revised |
Do I need a locking read? added 291 characters in body |
|
Feb 15 |
comment |
What would this non-'unique index with a unique search condition` query lock? then maybe I don't understand 'range', but there is no range in the sense there could be gaps, is there? There will be a block on that col=2 condition, not on any PK, is there? |
|
Feb 15 |
asked | What would this non-'unique index with a unique search condition` query lock? |
|
Feb 15 |
revised |
Do I need a locking read? added 733 characters in body |
|
Feb 15 |
revised |
Do I need a locking read? added 152 characters in body |
|
Feb 15 |
asked | Do I need a locking read? |
|
Feb 15 |
awarded | Informed |
|
Jan 3 |
awarded | Popular Question |
|
Dec 8 |
comment |
Can a trigger access the query string? I have tried this, but the query I always get is the "SELECT info INTO" query. The CONNECTION_ID() does change, but it looks like the current id is always that of the select? Should I try and save the CONNECTION_ID() earlier in the process? |
|
Sep 12 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Sep 12 |
accepted | Internal reason for killing process taking up long time in mysql |
|
Sep 12 |
comment |
Internal reason for killing process taking up long time in mysql I'll check that, thanks. Anyway, the kill-and-force-recovery seems to have worked, alhtough I couldn't stop the process. In the end I just did a kill -9 to be done with it. |
