MySQL Forums
Forum List  »  Replication

Re: My problem is different
Posted by: Alon Lubin
Date: February 18, 2009 04:07AM

Sorry for the late response,
But I don't understand why this would help.

Instead of generating one simple statement that takes few seconds to complete,
The binary logs contains GB's of unneeded information in the format of RBR.

Transaction division will not speed up the IO required for this process, the slaves still need to read thousands of rows from the binary log.

Now, what really interests me is why not use SBR when working with "read-committed" isolation level?
Why is it different than "repeatable-read" isolation level in which SBR are enabled?

Both don't force locking, allowing change of underlying data during a transaction. The only difference is that repeatable-read will always show the same information when performing query, while read-committed shows available data only.

Thanks, Alon.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject
Views
Written By
Posted
3245
February 11, 2009 05:12AM
1905
February 11, 2009 05:17AM
1988
February 11, 2009 06:15AM
1993
February 12, 2009 10:13AM
2095
February 13, 2009 11:26PM
Re: My problem is different
1904
February 18, 2009 04:07AM
1819
February 19, 2009 12:34AM
1842
February 19, 2009 11:21AM
1788
February 20, 2009 12:49AM


Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.

Content reproduced on this site is the property of the respective copyright holders. It is not reviewed in advance by Oracle and does not necessarily represent the opinion of Oracle or any other party.