This post will be updated as soon more information comes along.

This developer version wasn’t released yet, when it does, use at your own risk.

Oracle released the development version of MySQL 8.0.0-dmr on September 12th of 2016. Since then, the team have been working on the 8.0.1 development milestone. You can find the partial change list here.

The objective here is try to explain how this will have any real world impact for you from 8.0.1. Please remember though, that any changes made to this version will not be final until the General Availability (date not currently set).

These topics are aimed at the Software Engineering side and not DBA and this is why Replication, for instance, is not covered …

FOSDEM is happening again in Brussels, and as usual, there will there be a MySQL and Friends Devroom. We can’t really imagine having a FOSDEM without having a MySQL and Friends Community Dinner, so here we are again..

Like the last couple of years, we have rented the same private space at ICAB, more detailed directions below.

You can buy tickets for the dinner at https://fosdem2017mysqlandfriendscommunitydinner.eventbrite.com

The listed ticket price includes a selection of Belgian Speciality Beers and food will be Belgian food served by a new (and improved) caterer:  …

This post discusses the next MySQL development milestone: MySQL 8.0.1.

From the outset, MySQL 8.0 has received plenty of attention. Both this blog (see the MySQL 8.0 search) and other sites around the Internet have covered it. Early reviews seem positive (including my own MySQL 8.0 early bugs review). There is plenty of excitement about the new features.

As for early feedback on MySQL 8.0, Peter Zaitsev (Percona CEO) listed a set of recommendations for benchmarking MySQL 8.0. I hope these get reviewed and implemented. …

MySQL Cluster does an automatic sharding/partitioning to the tables across data nodes, enabling databases to scale horizontally to serve read and write-intensive workloads, but what is the default sharding key used in partitioning the data?
According to the recent update (Oct, 2016) of the MySQL Cluster white paper, primary key is the default sharding key:

By default, sharding is based on hashing of the primary key, which generally leads to a more even distribution of data and queries across the cluster than alternative approaches such as range partitioning.

However, that is not the case in all MySQL Cluster versions so far!
In this post, I’ll do some test cases on MySQL Cluster (of 4 datanodes) to confirm the default sharding key.

Testing on MySQL Cluster 7.2.26 …

The innodb_buffer_pool_size the most important variable for entire MySQL server. Last few years, you have seen the drastic improvements in the InnoDB storage engine features. After Oracle acquiring the MySQL, the importance of InnoDB storage engine grows multiple times over MyISAM. Even though MySQL supports multiple pluggable storage engines, one of the main reasons is its ACID compliance properties. Recent improvements in the MySQL 5.7 such as online innodb_buffer_pool_size configuration made it as a highly flexible and allow us to get the best performance without long downtime.
Initially, when I start to configure the innodb_buffer_pool_size variable on my test environment, like most of us, I googled as, 
What is MySQL innodb_buffer_pool_size?Do I need to change MySQL innodb_buffer_pool_size?What are the recommendations for innodb_buffer_pool_size in MySQL?What are the best practices for configuring innodb_buffer_pool_size …

Amazon is releasing new products & services to it’s global cloud compute network at a rate that has all of our heads spinning. Join 32,000 others and follow Sean Hull on twitter @hullsean. Here’s new stuff worth mentioning around databases & data. 1. For ETL – AWS GLUE Moving data from your transactional MySQL or … Continue reading What products & improvements are new on AWS? →

Most users of MySQL utilize the mysqldump utility to backup their database. While mysqldump is handy and easy-to-use (and free), if you have data which is important to your business, then you should take a look at the MySQL Enterprise Edition – and use MySQL Enterprise Backup instead. The MySQL Enterprise Backup allows you to backup your database without the table locking you get with mysqldump. And, it is extremely fast – especially when you have to restore your database. Here is a sample speed comparison between MySQL Enterprise Backup and …

This post discusses archiving MySQL and MongoDB data, and determining what, when and how to archive data.

Many people store infrequently used data. This data is taking up storage space and might make your database slower than it could be. Archiving data can be a huge benefit, both regarding the performance impact and storage savings.

Why archive?

One of the reasons for archiving data is freeing up space on your database volumes. You can store archived data on slower, less expensive storage devices, and current data on the faster database drives. Archiving old data makes backups and restores run faster since they need to process less data. Last, but by no means least, archiving data has the benefit of making your queries perform more efficiently since they do not need to process through old …

This blog compares how PostgreSQL and MySQL handle millions of queries per second.

Anastasia: Can open source databases cope with millions of queries per second? Many open source advocates would answer “yes.” However, assertions aren’t enough for well-grounded proof. That’s why in this blog post, we share the benchmark testing results from Alexander Korotkov (CEO of Development, Postgres Professional) and Sveta Smirnova (Principal Technical Services Engineer, Percona). The comparative research of PostgreSQL 9.6 and MySQL 5.7 performance will be especially valuable for environments with multiple databases.

The idea behind this research is to provide an honest comparison for the two popular RDBMSs. Sveta and Alexander wanted to test the most recent versions of both MySQL and PostgreSQL with the same tool, under the same challenging …

Why do we sometimes want to keep duplicate indexes?

I’ve done dutiful DBA work in the past to identify and remove what are commonly called duplicate indexes. That is, those indexes that look like (a) and (a,b). The thought is that a query will utilize an index as easily on (a) as on (a,b), and removing (a) will save storage cost and write performance. I’ve had the experience, though, of removing (a) and seeing performance tank.

(As an aside, these are really redundant indexes. A duplicate index would be (a,b) and (a,b) by two different names – this can commonly be done by object relational mapping (ORM) or other automated schema creation tools. I’ll call (a) and (a,b) redundant indexes below.)

This test is on Percona Server 5.7.14 with the sys schema installed and performance schema enabled.

Given two tables with the same number of rows and …