Generally, tables will become corrupt only when a write operation is interrupted. MySQL uses a write() system call, so even if the server crashes, as long as the OS is still operative the data will be safe.
If many different tables are getting repeatedly corrupted, I would suspect hardware problems first. Have the system taken down and RAM and the hard drives tested. Bad RAM cells or disk sectors can lead to this type of table corruption.
After the above hardware checks, before you start up mysqld, I would make sure you are starting with a clean slate by running myisamchk --silent --force */*.MYI
first. Then start mysqld. If corruption occurs again, check the error log for a corresponding system crash. If you find corruption even in the absence of a mysqld crash, you may have found a bug: Try to isolate a particular query that occurs just before (you'll need to have the general query log enabled). If you can kill the server with a specific query repeatedly, you have found a bug and should submit it.
If you are running multiple instances of mysqld, or running myisamchk while mysqld is running, it might be that the lock manager for your system is not working properly. If you are NOT running multiple instances, try using the --skip-external-locking
option to remove the lock manager from the mix of possibilities.
Some versions come with testing tools. They are in a directory call mysql-test and/or mysql-bench or similar. Try those out. Also try to emulate your application on a different system to see if you can replicate the crashes/corruption.
...even surpassing it's theorically maximum possible allocation.
[OK] Maximum possible memory usage: 7.3G (46% of installed RAM)
There is not actually a way to calculate maximum possible memory usage for MySQL, because there is no cap on the memory it can request from the system.
The calculation done by mysqltuner.pl is only an estimate, based on a formula that doesn't take into account all possible variables, because if all possible variables were taken into account, the answer would always be "infinite." It's unfortunate that it's labeled this way.
Here is my theory on what's contributing to your excessive memory usage:
thread_cache_size = 128
Given that your max_connections
is set to 200, the value of 128 for thread_cache_size
seems far too high. Here's what makes me think this might be contributing to your problem:
When a thread is no longer needed, the memory allocated to it is released and returned to the system unless the thread goes back into the thread cache. In that case, the memory remains allocated.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/memory-use.html
If your workload causes even an occasional client thread to require a large amount of memory, those threads may be holding onto that memory, then going back to the pool and sitting around, continuing to hold on to memory they don't technically "need" any more, on the premise that holding on to the memory is less costly than releasing it if you're likely to need it again.
I think it's worth a try to do the following, after first making a note of how much memory MySQL is using at the moment.
Note how many threads are currently cached:
mysql> show status like 'Threads_cached';
+----------------+-------+
| Variable_name | Value |
+----------------+-------+
| Threads_cached | 9 |
+----------------+-------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
Next, disable the thread cache.
mysql> SET GLOBAL thread_cache_size = 0;
This disables the thread cache, but the cached threads will stay in the pool until they're used one more time. Disconnect from the server, then reconnect and repeat.
mysql> show status like 'Threads_cached';
Continue disconnecting, reconnecting, and checking until the counter reaches 0.
Then, see how much memory MySQL is holding.
You may see a decrease, possibly significant, and then again you may not. I tested this on one of my systems, which had 9 threads in the cache. Once those threads had all been cleared out of the cache, the total memory held by MySQL did decrease... not by much, but it does illustrate that threads in the cache do release at least some memory when they are destroyed.
If you see a significant decrease, you may have found your problem. If you don't, then there's one more thing that needs to happen, and how quickly it can happen depends on your environment.
If the theory holds that the other threads -- the ones currently servicing active client connections -- have significant memory allocated to them, either because of recent work in their current client session or because of work requiring a lot of memory that was done by another connection prior to them languishing in the pool, then you won't see all of the potential reduction in memory consumption until those threads are allowed to die and be destroyed. Presumably your application doesn't hold them forever, but how long it will take to know for sure whether there's a difference will depend on whether you have the option of cycling your application (dropping and reconnecting the client threads) or if you'll have to just wait for them to be dropped and reconnected over time on their own.
But... it seems like a worthwhile test. You should not see a substantial performance penalty by setting thread_cache_size
to 0. Fortunately, thread_cache_size
is a dynamic variable, so you can freely change it with the server running.
Best Answer
Change
LEFT JOIN
toJOIN
.Change
to
Have this index on tbl_artists:
FULLTEXT(artist_name)
.I assume that
tbl_songs
hasPRIMARY KEY(id)
.Assuming that
tbl_songs_artist
is a many-to-many mapping table, follow the tips in http://mysql.rjweb.org/doc.php/index_cookbook_mysql#many_to_many_mapping_tableIs this a typo?
tbl_songs.ids
Use
ENGINE=InnoDB
.Don't comment out the setting for
innodb_buffer_pool_size
.Not more than 1% of RAM for these:
("Sending status" is useless info.)