On Thu, 10 May 2001, Dan Nelson wrote:
> > The first two are as expected, the third isn't. However, this is
> > with a mysqld that was configured with --with-innobase. So why is
> > have_innodb=NO?
>
> The name of the option changed in 3.23.37. Use --with-innodb instead.
Never trust printed documentation on rapidly moving software projects :-)
Thank you, and thanks to Jeremy as well.
Also, my initial testing shows that INNOBASE tables are even faster than
MyISAM, at least for insertions, though the same tupples in a similar
table seem to take up more room. Aside from the restrictions mentioned in
8.7.4 of the reference manual, are there any other gotcha's that I should
be looking out for? I noticed that a simple select count(*) from test
where value='123456789' was slower with innodb than myisam when the item
that I searched for wasn't indexed. How well do innodb tables recover
from a system crash?
We're currently evaluating PostgreSQL and MySQL for some backend reporting
functions (replacing a GDBM/logfile/perl driven system), where the two
primary tables will receive 20K+ records a day which will never be
updated, with quarterly purges of anything older than 6 months. There
will be other tables that will undergo continuous updates, though they
should be much smaller.
So far, MySQL is doing quite well at matching or exceding PostreSQL's
performance, though oddly enough, MySQL is taking more memory to do its
job. Not complaining, mind you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
