On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 11:45:26AM -0400, adam nelson wrote: > > I'm finally getting around to working with InnoDB for real :-)
Great. > Anyway, is there any reason to still use MyISAM on any tables. Of course there is. > Concurrency is my biggest problem (Locked tables, etc.). Then for you the anser might be "no". > My theory is that the tables that wouldn't benefit from converting > to InnoDB are so small (5-50 rows?) that I might as well just > convert every table for simplicity sake (I have 15 tables, some have > 5 records, some 25,000). > > Can anyone enumerate the reasons not to use InnoDB (besides what's > listed at http://www.innodb.com/ibman.html#InnoDB_restrictions) from a > performance standpoint? Well, what sort of data volume are you trying to push? And how many concurrent insert/update/deletes do you need? > The only reason I see for using myIsam would be a table with > extremely high insert rates (web logs, tcp logs, etc.) and very few > users (or none). I guess embedded applications might be concerned > about the footprint of innodb as well? Right. -- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://jeremy.zawodny.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
