On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 09:51:12PM -0800, Jeff Kilbride wrote:
>
> If you cover stuff like this in your book, I'll definitely buy it.
> :)
Now that's what I like to hear! :-)
> Ok, last question on this subject, I promise! Why not use InnoDB and
> replication? I was looking through the manual expecting to find a
> line that says "replication is only available with MyISAM tables" --
> but I can't find it anywhere. It seems like this combination would
> be the best of both worlds. Am I missing something?
The question for many folks isn't "Why not use InnoDB with
replication?" it's the one that comes before: "Why not use InnoDB?"
If you're used to dealing with MyISAM, there are a lot of things you
take for granted that aren't there with InnoDB. Off the top of my
head:
* Not having each table in a separate file may complicate backups.
* Not having full-text index support might be a problem.
* The extra tuning and effort involved in setting up InnoDB may not
be worth it (yet).
And the list goes on.
I'm not trying to knock InnoDB. The point is that there are
differences among all the table types that one needs to consider when
changing among them.
If you've already decided that InnoDB is a Good Thing for you, and
you're really not using transactions, get the replication going too.
Why not? :-)
Jeremy
--
Jeremy D. Zawodny, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Finance
Desk: (408) 349-7878 Fax: (408) 349-5454 Cell: (408) 685-5936
MySQL 3.23.47-max: up 23 days, processed 769,728,906 queries (376/sec. avg)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
