Did you change innodb_buffer_pool_size first? Did you make sure all the tables had PRIMARY KEYs? I'll bet the next dump+reload will be faster -- because they will then be dumped _and_ reloaded in the same order. Etc.
That is, your test case involved several things other than just "load" speed. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lorenzo Milesi [mailto:max...@ufficyo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:10 AM > To: mysql@lists.mysql.com > Subject: Re: Change storage engine to InnoDB > > > InnoDB is _often_ faster than MyISAM. > > I restored a 700M gzipped dump on MyISAM tables and it took 20 minutes. > I then replaced the CREATE TABLE statements to use InnoDB, the same > restore on the same machine took 105 minutes. > Not a big improvement, isn't it? > Am I missing something? > > Using 5.5.28. > > Thanks > -- > Lorenzo Milesi - lorenzo.mil...@yetopen.it > > GPG/PGP Key-Id: 0xE704E230 - http://keyserver.linux.it > > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
