I'm currently running MySQL for a big, fast app without problems. BUT:
I'm in the middle of specifying a new application with a high load, and I'm consideing looking for alternatives to MySQL because without InnoDB, it gets really slow on tables with frequent updates and reads (no row locking). We have, for example, a session table that records all the incoming requests for holding state. Since it's constantly being updated and read, it is frequently locked, and there are often instances where 50 reads will stack up while a lock is held. This slows down the whole database. With InnoDB, I'm sure this problem goes away, but as soon as we go to InnoDB, we have to pay for backups and support, which means we start looking around at 'pay' solutions. Is there something I'm missing? Steve >> However, my impression is that while the answer, for the very highest >> volumes, is that Oracle is better, the point at which Oracle >> betters MySQL >> is *much* higher than doubters might think. So, if anybody >> give the reply >> that Oracle is best at the high end, please could they also >> try to quantify >> the point at which MySQL begins to run out of steam - and >> what it is it >> can't do and Oracle can at that point. (For example, MySQL >> can handle high >> read loads by use of replication, but would bottleneck on >> high write loads >> - I think). --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
