Algorithmically, it is doing what your colleague says. But, do you see what it is doing ???
It is generating 10,000 temp tables each containing 1 row after traversing 317 million rows through in the InnoDB internal index. Each temp table is a complete regeneration of the rowids in sernumbers_results_2009 table along with executing handler_read_prev commands internally to sort the data by an index scan from the back of the internal rowid index. Also, please remember you are dealing with InnoDB. Who knows what Multiversioning (via MVCC) is going on so that the INSERT is completed without interference and with rollback capabilities.
Is there any reason why this query wouldn't work for you ???
INSERT INTO sernumbers_results_2009
SELECT * FROM sernumbers_results
ORDER BY rowid DESC LIMIT 10000;
This will definitely generate one temp table.
Give it a Try !!!
...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
Your problem is the innodb buffer size - that is a lot more dependant on database patterns than users. If your database is only 20gb there is no sense in a larger buffer.
And the sensible size there can not be determined from user count only.
So, given you need something for the OS and MySql as a server, then 26gb for the connections - and man, I don't do MySql, but in SQL Server world 5000 connections would be crazy and be for like 100.000 users with connection pooling at the same time.
Assuming that is not just crazy bad programming - I would go with 32 to 64gb memory and the best xeon chips I can get my hands on.... RAM is not your problem here, processing 5000 concurrent SQL statements is. As a start - 64gb memory are cheap in such a server. If the database is larger, then 128gb to 256gb memory would be good. But your problem is not memory, if you really have 5000 concurrent users doing things and not just keeping passive users connected, which is bad programming.