row on SWiK

Row level security using Spring and Hibernate | mattfleming.com

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:15:51 -0700

Article on InnoDB Plugin

Sun, 04 May 2008 03:15:28 -0700

Last week I wrote an article on InnoDB plugin, which explains how to explore all the new features in the plugin along with comparing different row formats.

The article is live now from here:
http://www.innodb.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/venu-anuganti-article-april-29-2008.html

Thanks to Ken Jacobs, who took the initiative to post the article on the web site.

InnoDB plugin row format performance

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:20:09 -0700

Here is a quick comparison of the new InnoDB plugin performance between different compression, row formats that is introduced recently.

The table is a pretty simple one:

CREATE TABLE `sbtest` (
  `id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
  `k` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT ‘0′,
  `c` char(120) NOT NULL DEFAULT ”,
  `pad` char(60) NOT NULL DEFAULT ”,
  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
  KEY `k` (`k`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB ROW_FORMAT=COMPRESSED KEY_BLOCK_SIZE=8;

The table is populated with 10M rows with average row length being 224 bytes. The tests are performed for Compact, Dynamic and Compressed (8K and 4K) row formats using MySQL-5.1.24 with InnoDB plugin-1.0.0-5.1 on Dell PE2950 1x Xeon quad core with 16G RAM, RAID-10 with RHEL-4 64-bit.

Here are the four test scenarios:

No compression, ROW_FORMAT=Compact
ROW_FORMAT=Compressed with KEY_BLOCK_SIZE=8
ROW_FORMAT=Compressed with KEY_BLOCK_SIZE=4
ROW_FORMAT=Dynamic

All the above tests are repeated with innodb_buffer_pool_size=6G and 512M to make sure one fits everything in memory and another one overflows. The rest of the InnoDB settings are all default except that innodb_thread_concurrency=32.

Here is the summary of the test results:

Table Load:

Load time from a dump of SQL script having 10M rows (not batched)

Compact	Compressed (8K)	Compressed (4K)	Dynamic
28m 18s	29m 46s	36m 43s	27m 55s

File Sizes:

Here is the size of the .ibd file after each data load

Compact	Compressed (8K)	Compressed (4K)	Dynamic
2.3G	1.2G	592M	2.3G

Data and Index Size from Table Status:

Here is the Data and Index size in bytes from SHOW TABLE STATUS and you can see the original data size here rather than the compressed size

	Compact	Compressed (8K)	Compressed (4K)	Dynamic
Data	2247098368	2247098368	2249195520	2247098368
Index	137019392	137035776	160301056	137019392

Compression Stats:

Here is the compression stats after the table is populated from information_schema.InnoDB_cmp; and you notice that 4K takes more operations and time for both compression and un-compression

	Page_size	Compress_ops	Compress_ops_ok	Compress_time	Uncompress_ops	Uncompress_time
8K	8192	446198	445598	73	300	0
4K	4096	1091421	1012917	463	38801	13

Performance:

Here is the performance of various row formats with threads ranging from 1-512 for both 512M and 6G buffer pool size for both concurrent reads and writes.

Observations:

Few key observations from the performance tests that I performed without looking to any of the sources, as I could be wrong, someone can correct me here. Its hard to draw from these input scenarios, but helps to estimate what is what.

The load time is almost same except that the 4K compression seems to take longer than the rest; and compression in general is hitting the INSERT/Load performance a little bit.
Compact or Dynamic, there is no compression; so the data and index file sizes will be almost same
The SHOW TABLE STATUS for compressed table will have its original Data_Length and Index_Length statistics rather than the compressed statistics (may be a bug or InnoDB needs to extend SHOW TABLE STATUS to show any compressed sizes or other means, right now only option is to view your files manually)
8K compression reduced the .ibd file by nearly 50% (1.2G out of 2.3G) and 4K compression reduced the size by 1/4th (592M out of 2.3G); and it could vary based on table types and data.
8K compression takes less ops and time for both compression and de-compression when compared to 4K (obvious)
When there is enough Innodb buffer pool size to act data in memory, the compression is a bit overhead, but you will be saving space
When there is a overflow from buffer pool (IO bound), compression seems to really help
4K compression in general seems to be slower when compared with 8K or any other row_format.

Firefoxのブックマークツールバーを複数行に (Nizah blog)

Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:30:14 -0800

Firefoxのブックマークツールバーを複数行に

Advanced CSS Tables II - Using Mootools Javascript For Alternate Row Colors | BluDice Blog :: PHP, MySQL, CSS, Javascript, MooTools, and Everything Else

Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:43:24 -0700

BluDice Blog :: PHP, MySQL, CSS, Javascript, MooTools, and Everything Else

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 05:27:06 -0700

As I discussed in Advanced CSS Tables - Using CSS3 For Alternate Row Colors, we will eventually be able to use the ":nth-child(argument)" pseudo-class in CSS3 to provide alternate row background colors. What do we use in the mean time? You can explici

Visual C# Databases: Data Records

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:48:49 -0700

Ótimo site que ensina como criar um Banco de Dados usando XML. Contémk teoria de DataSet.

Using Spring AOP to add row level security to Hibernate or any ORM really - TheArcMind.com

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:41:13 -0700

I am working on a new Aspect that does row level security in conjunction with Hibernate filters. It seems initial goal but after attending some meetings it may not be the only goal. In general I need a somewhat generic way to handle row level security.

Selecting Columns and Rows in HTML Tables with Firefox | Acts of Volition

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:28:57 -0800

You can select columns, rows, or blocks of cells in HTML tables in Firefox (or any Gecko-powered browser) by holding down “Control” and selecting with the mouse. Handy for copy+pasting data from tables in websites.

Straight from the Abyss » New in Hibernate 3: Criteria API enhancements

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:35:14 -0800