In my experience, InnoDB performance should approach MyISAM in most environments where the disk is the bottleneck (due to the fact, as said in the InnoDB table type intro in the docs, InnoDB is more CPU efficient than any other disk-based transaction engine). Additionally, I have a similar workload on a few boxes down at a client's office. InnoDB made a lot of sense in this case.
Regards,
Chris
Paul Gallier wrote:
I'm running a large database which is currently using MyISAM. There are approximately 300 million rows in about a dozen tables totaling 7GB of storage. The system is averaging 257 querries per second, probably peaking at around 500-600+ during busy times. We're running a single database with one programming doing insertions/updates and a web server doing only selects. The problem is that the insertions/updates tend to bog down a bit when the web side gets busy. I figured switching to InnoDB might help with the row-locking support, however, on my test system things ran very slow using InnoDB instead of MyISAM. This was just running the script handling the inserts/updates with no web access, but a test that took 2 minutes 34 seconds using MyISAM tables took 10 minutes 37 seconds using InnoDB. I setup enough disk space to hold the tables and had seemingly sufficient ammounts of mmeory configured for InnoDB, so I cannot understand the drastic slowdown. Any advise would be greatly appreciated.
-- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
