Didn't even know that one existed. It has an attraction, esp. in terms of backing up the data.
But the link refers to the performance benefit in accessing one line at a time. Supposing I was doing a search for all records where a particular string is present -- what would the overhead be in the searching of the compressed file? On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Walter Heck - OlinData.com <li...@olindata.com> wrote: > Ah, if you are single-user and updating really is a special occasion > that is completely in your control, you could even use compressed > MyISAM. That makes the table read-only though, but it does give > performance benefits: > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/4.1/en/myisampack.html > > good luck! > > Walter Heck > Engineer @ Open Query (http://openquery.com) > > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 08:50, Mitchell Maltenfort <mmal...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> You want the crash safety and data integrity that comes with InnoDB. Even >>>> more so as your dataset grows. It's performance is far better than myisam >>>> tables for most OLTP users, and as your number of concurrent readers and >>>> writers grows, the improvement in performance from using innodb over >>>> myisam becomes more pronounced. >>> >>> His scenario is "perhaps updated once a year", though, so crash recovery and >>> multiple writer performance is not important. >> >> And the concurrent reader and writer number is set at one, unless I >> undergo mitosis or something. >> >> -- >> MySQL General Mailing List >> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql >> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=li...@olindata.com >> >> > -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
