Re: innodb_file_per_table cost

Hi Sebastian, It depends. In general, no. In some filesystems and operating systems, it actually helps. I think you can base your decision on whether it makes server administration easier for you. Regards Baron Thanks It seems there are no clear thresholds between I/O access, the number

RE: innodb_file_per_table cost

-Original Message- From: Sebastien Moretti [mailto:sebastien.more...@unil.ch] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:38 AM To: Baron Schwartz; mysql@lists.mysql.com Subject: Re: innodb_file_per_table cost Hi Sebastian, It depends. In general, no. In some filesystems and operating systems

RE: innodb_file_per_table cost

[mailto:sebastien.more...@unil.ch] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:38 AM To: Baron Schwartz; mysql@lists.mysql.com Subject: Re: innodb_file_per_table cost Hi Sebastian, It depends. In general, no. In some filesystems and operating systems, it actually helps. I think you can base your

Re: innodb_file_per_table cost

[JS] I strongly suspect that MySQL, like any other random access, variable record length scheme, would find it easier to manage the internal layout of separate files. The rows would tend more to be of similar sizes, leading to less obnoxious fragmentation, and the files themselves would be

innodb_file_per_table cost

Hi, Does the use of innodb_file_per_table option imply a performance cost ? Compared to default: all InnoDB indexes are in ibdataX file(s). Thanks -- Sébastien Moretti -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:

Re: innodb_file_per_table cost

Hi Sebastian, It depends. In general, no. In some filesystems and operating systems, it actually helps. I think you can base your decision on whether it makes server administration easier for you. Regards Baron On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Sebastien MORETTI sebastien.more...@unil.ch