Invalidating query cache entries table mysql
For subsequent Milestone 2 releases, we plan to use increasing version numbers (5.5.1 and higher) while continuing to employ the suffixes are no used.You may notice that the My SQL 5.5.0 release is designated as Milestone 2 rather than Milestone 1.Even if I solved that, I'd have to use the surrogate in partitioning - which more or less defeats the purpose of partitioning by lopsiding the partitions. A long composite key is also not an option because: In Inno DB tables, having a long PRIMARY KEY wastes a lot of space.(See Section 13.6.10, “Inno DB Table and Index Structures”.) --- Inno DB, the records in nonclustered indexes (also called secondary indexes) contain the primary key columns for the row that are not in the secondary index.If I do "stop slave" and then "start slave" again it immediately has an error like this, seemingly for random tables that have been written to (not one in particular): Could not execute Write_rows event on table XXX; Duplicate entry 'YYY' for key 'ZZZ', Error_code: 1062; handler error HA_ERR_FOUND_DUPP_KEY; the event's master log binlog.000003, end_log_pos 704849 I have scoured the bug reports and found nothing to explain either of these. I'm running the Linux (AMD64 / Intel EM64T) build of 5.1.25 on a xeon box...nothing that unusual about my environment or database. If nobody has ideas I suppose I will file bug reports, but these are such general failures I don't know what to say in them other than "it don't work".Only thing I could think of is that my app does some large insert delayed ... This is because My SQL 5.4 was actually designated as Milestone 1, although we had not yet begun referring to milestone numbers as part of version numbers at the time.去slave从库上查看运行状态，果然Seconds_Behind_Master: 28810，而且提示Slave_SQL_Running_State: System lock而且这个是变化的，有的时候提示Slave_SQL_Running_State: invalidating query cache entries (table)，而且Seconds_Behind_Master: 29086 不停的增长着： show slave status\G*************************** 1.
Also observer 16 row deletes per second but 600,754 row reads per second, same mismatch between counts suggesting unindexed accesses are happening.
I don't understand why this bug isn't treated with more severity.
It completely hamstrings any large volume setup - in my case, my only decent primary key is a surrogate key - and that's untenable because of the locking and lost concurrency (even with lock_mode = 2). to improve query times)" PK is not really an option for them since there are no short unique columns.
My SQL 5.5.0-m2 is the first release for Milestone 2.
The new features of this milestone may be considered to be initially of beta quality.