Grant Allen wrote:
Storage engines are unique to MySQL? yes. Is that good? YMMV. Most
of the purported benefits can be achieved with Oracle's features
without the compromises of balkanised storage engines. You're right,
they're not offered by Oracle, or anyone else ... there's a reason no
other database bothers with storage engines - they got storage right
the first time :-) (ooh ... the flames I'll get for that :-) ). Sure,
non-volatile data in a MyISAM table can be read at the speed of light,
and handle the odd insert. Funnily enough, a text file has the same
properties. They both suck for non-trivial concurrent transactions.
I'd suggest taking a look at parallel DML, nologging, MVs,
partitioning, direct-path insert, appended insert, RAC, ASM, ASSM,
etc. etc. etc. in Oracle for more perspective
Grant,
LOL - an entertaining read!
One advantage of multiple storage engines that comes to mind is that you
can streamline your setup for different workloads:
- Innodb/Falcon for non-trivial concurrency workloads
- Myisam for fairly static or bulk-loaded (mainly) read workloads.
Is is hard - maybe impossible - to design one storage that engine does
*everything* well (e.g Oracle is not that good for very large data
warehouses, as any Teradata sales bloke will tell you...), so I think
this is a useful feature unique to Mysql.
Cheers
Mark
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
