1. 22 May, 2014 1 commit
  2. 16 May, 2014 1 commit
  3. 13 May, 2014 1 commit
    • Jan Lindström's avatar
      MDEV-6075: Allow > 16K pages on InnoDB · 9d399c9f
      Jan Lindström authored
      This patch allows up to 64K pages for tables with DYNAMIC, COMPACT 
      and REDUNDANT row types. Tables with COMPRESSED row type allows 
      still only <= 16K page size. Note that single row size must be
      still <= 16K and max key length is not affected.
      9d399c9f
  4. 08 May, 2014 1 commit
  5. 06 May, 2014 3 commits
  6. 05 May, 2014 5 commits
  7. 04 May, 2014 1 commit
  8. 01 May, 2014 7 commits
  9. 28 Apr, 2014 1 commit
  10. 24 Apr, 2014 1 commit
  11. 23 Apr, 2014 3 commits
    • Jan Lindström's avatar
      Fixed bug on free buffer space calculation when LZO is used. · 2d340f9a
      Jan Lindström authored
      Fixed bug on function call when InnoDB plugin is used.
      2d340f9a
    • unknown's avatar
      MDEV-6156: Parallel replication incorrectly caches charset between worker threads · 010971a7
      unknown authored
      Replication caches the character sets used in a query, to be able to quickly
      reuse them for the next query in the common case of them not having changed.
      
      In parallel replication, this caching needs to be per-worker-thread. The
      code was not modified to handle this correctly, so the caching in one worker
      could cause another worker to run a query using the wrong character set,
      causing replication corruption.
      010971a7
    • Sergey Vojtovich's avatar
      MDEV-5792 - Deadlock between SELECTs from METADATA_LOCK_INFO and another · b1232490
      Sergey Vojtovich authored
                  I_S table
      
      mdl_iterate() helper function (which is used by the plugin to iterate mdl
      locks) acquired mutexes in reverse order.
      
      Fixed by iterating MDL locks in two stages:
      1. Iterate locks hash under the protection of hash mutex, store all
         lock pointers in a thread local array and increment reference counter
         for the lock.
      2. Iterate local array without protection of hash mutex, handle destroyed
         locks.
      
      It somewhat echoes hack in MDL_map_partition::move_from_hash_to_lock_mutex.
      b1232490
  12. 05 May, 2014 1 commit
  13. 02 May, 2014 1 commit
  14. 29 Apr, 2014 1 commit
  15. 25 Apr, 2014 2 commits
  16. 28 Apr, 2014 1 commit
    • Sergey Petrunya's avatar
      Revert these two changes (wrong push) : · 182f7d76
      Sergey Petrunya authored
      MDEV-5980: EITS: if condition is used for REF access, its selectivity is still in filtered%
      MDEV-5985: EITS: selectivity estimates look illogical for join and non-key equalities
      MDEV-6003: EITS: ref access, keypart2=const vs keypart2=expr - inconsistent filtered% value
      - Made a number of fixes in table_cond_selectivity() so that it returns
        correct selectivity estimates.
      - Added comments in related code.
      Better comments
      182f7d76
  17. 25 Apr, 2014 1 commit
  18. 23 Apr, 2014 1 commit
  19. 22 Apr, 2014 3 commits
    • Igor Babaev's avatar
      Merge. · bcf16fa6
      Igor Babaev authored
      bcf16fa6
    • Igor Babaev's avatar
      Fixed the problem of mdev-5947. · 3e0f63c1
      Igor Babaev authored
      Back-ported from the mysql 5.6 code line the patch with
      the following comment:
      
        Fix for Bug#11757108 CHANGE IN EXECUTION PLAN FOR COUNT_DISTINCT_GROUP_ON_KEY
                             CAUSES PEFORMANCE REGRESSION
      
        The cause for the performance regression is that the access strategy for the
        GROUP BY query is changed form using "index scan" in mysql-5.1 to use "loose
        index scan" in mysql-5.5. The index used for group by is unique and thus each
        "loose scan" group will only contain one record. Since loose scan needs to
        re-position on each "loose scan" group this query will do a re-position for
        each index entry. Compared to just reading the next index entry as a normal
        index scan does, the use of loose scan for this query becomes more expensive.
      
        The cause for selecting to use loose scan for this query is that in the current
        code when the size of the "loose scan" group is one, the formula for
        calculating the cost estimates becomes almost identical to the cost of using
        normal index scan. Differences in use of integer versus floating point arithmetic
        can cause one or the other access strategy to be selected.
      
        The main issue with the formula for estimating the cost of using loose scan is
        that it does not take into account that it is more costly to do a re-position
        for each "loose scan" group compared to just reading the next index entry.
        Both index scan and loose scan estimates the cpu cost as:
      
          "number of entries needed too read/scan" * ROW_EVALUATE_COST
      
        The results from testing with the query in this bug indicates that the real
        cost for doing re-position four to eight times higher than just reading the
        next index entry. Thus, the cpu cost estimate for loose scan should be increased.
        To account for the extra work to re-position in the index we increase the
        cost for loose index scan to include the cost of navigating the index.
        This is modelled as a function of the height of the b-tree:
      
          navigation cost= ceil(log(records in table)/log(indexes per block))
                         * ROWID_COMPARE_COST;
      
        This will avoid loose index scan being used for indexes where the "loose scan"
        group contains very few index entries.
      3e0f63c1
    • Alexander Barkov's avatar
  20. 21 Apr, 2014 2 commits
  21. 27 Apr, 2014 1 commit
  22. 25 Apr, 2014 1 commit