Hello.
If you have lots of concurrent updates and selects on the
same table, InnoDB usually has better performance. Use the
benchmarks to determine what configuration is preferred.
Super-smack for example allows you to write very flexible tests.
Be aware of different behavior of AUTO_INCREMENT columns in InnoDB.
See:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/innodb-auto-increment-column.html
"Eamon Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have a table containing just one column that we use for
> unique IDs:
>
> CREATE TABLE `id_sequence` (
> `id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
> PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
> ) TYPE=MyISAM
>
> Watching 'SHOW FULL PROCESSLIST' and reading the slow query
> log shows the occasional backlog of locks. Has anyone found
> significant speed increases or better concurrency by
> switching over to InnoDB for such a table?
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Eamon Daly
>
>
--
For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita
This email is sponsored by Ensita.NET http://www.ensita.net/
__ ___ ___ ____ __
/ |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / Gleb Paharenko
/ /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ MySQL AB / Ensita.NET
<___/ www.mysql.com
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
