Hi! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: mailing.database.mysql Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 2:10 AM Subject: Re: InnoDB is better than MyISAM ?
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, BD wrote: > > > At 01:54 PM 4/5/2002, you wrote: > > >I have seen many people saying that InnoDB is a great deal, that InnoDB > > >rocks, etc. and I am concerced about how much better InnoDB is compared to > > >MyISAM tables. Can someone tells me wich one is better ? I know that InnoDB > > >have foreign keys support, but I deal very well without then since now. > > > > > >My interests are justified becaus eI got out of a very old struct ( DBM + > > >Text Files ) and jumped head first into MySQL - MyISAM tables, but my site > > >has a good deal of visitors ( about 30.000 unique visitors by day ) and speed > > >and reliability are my primary concerns. I plan to use replication in MySQL, > > >and I would like to know if InnoDB is better than MyISAM for this. MySQL replication works with InnoDB type tables, and is currently used at several sites. InnoDB Hot Backup (non-free software) makes it possible to set up a new slave without stopping the master or setting any locks on the master. This is a useful feature at sites requiring high availability. > One note here is that transactions aren't preserved for replication with > InnoDB, so you loose part of one of the major advantages of InnoDB. > Rollbacks are O.K., since I don't think that goes out to the slaves until > the commit, but if the master or slave goes down after part of a > transaction is sent to the slave, you get a partially committed > transaction on the slave. How critical this is depends on the > application, and still is no worse than MyISAM which has no transactions > to begin with. > > I think Heikki Tuuri has mentioned plans to get this fixed, though I think > I remember that he said that the problem was in MySQL, not in the actual > InnoDB code, which makes sense. A potential embedded license buyer is interested in getting this fixed. If the deal is closed, we may add the commit marks to the binlog rather soon. > > Have you ever heard the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?".<bg> > > > > If your website is mainly for read access to your database then you're not > > going to need InnoDb. > > Agreed 100%, but it doesn't hurt too much (except for index sizes) on > readonly databases, so on our production system, we standardized on InnoDB > for all tables for consistency, though we will allow for exceptions for > tables that need features that aren't in InnoDB yet, such as full text > searching. > > > InnoDb inserts (for a single user) are much slower (for me it is > > around 10x slower) than MyISAM because InnoDb does a lot more work. > > This was not my experience. Without batching the commits, InnoDB lost out > to MyISAM on our initial testing by about 1.5x rather than 10x. > > However, when I committed every 100 or so inserts, InnoDB beat out MyISAM > by a small (25%) margin. This was with a single user hitting the > database, a perl program that read in a text file, split it into fields, > and stuffed it into the database one record at a time (identical programs > except for handling the commits()). > > Now, this wasn't normal database activity, pure inserts into a freshly > created table, but the results were still quite impressive. Also, I'm > dealing with single-user activity, so there may have been some > differences there as well. Best regards, Heikki Tuuri Innobase Oy --- InnoDB - transactions, row level locking, and foreign key support for MySQL See http://www.innodb.com, download MySQL-Max from http://www.mysql.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
