>-----Original Message----- >From: Sebastien Moretti [mailto:sebastien.more...@unil.ch] >Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:38 AM >To: Baron Schwartz; mysql@lists.mysql.com >Subject: Re: innodb_file_per_table cost > >> Hi Sebastian, >> >> It depends. In general, no. In some filesystems and operating >> systems, it actually helps. I think you can base your decision on >> whether it makes server administration easier for you. >> >> Regards >> Baron > >Thanks > >It seems there are no clear thresholds between I/O access, the number of >innodb index files, their sizes, ... > [JS] I strongly suspect that MySQL, like any other random access, variable record length scheme, would find it easier to manage the internal layout of separate files. The rows would tend more to be of similar sizes, leading to less obnoxious fragmentation, and the files themselves would be smaller.
> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Does the use of "innodb_file_per_table" option imply a performance >cost ? >>> Compared to default: all InnoDB indexes are in ibdataX file(s). >>> >>> Thanks > >-- >Sébastien Moretti > > >-- >MySQL General Mailing List >For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql >To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=jschwa...@the- >infoshop.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
