> > 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!
Entertaining? I feel to see the humor in his post. > 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. MyISAM never really got "finished" as a data storage engine and neither did InnoDB. MyISAM doesn't support referential constraints, so for any serious data storage, it's a no-go area for me. InnoDB, on the other hand, doesn't support Full Text Indices (Search), that's where MyISAM comes into play. That's the problem with the currently available non-alpha storage engines in MySQL: they just don't cut it. Martijn Tonies Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, NexusDB, Oracle & MS SQL Server Upscene Productions http://www.upscene.com My thoughts: http://blog.upscene.com/martijn/ Database development questions? Check the forum! http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
