At 11/02/2002 05:21, Paul DuBois wrote:
At 4:10 +0700 2/11/02, Steven Haryanto wrote:
i believe since 3.23.39 it should not be?
BDB and MyISAM tables have different properties with respect to
AUTO_INCREMENT behavior.
i see, so this is an undocumented feature (i haven't seen this
in http
i believe since 3.23.39 it should not be?
mysql create table t1_b(i int unsigned primary key
auto_increment, j int) type=bdb;
mysql create table t1_m(i int unsigned primary key
auto_increment, j int) type=myisam;
mysql insert into t1_bdb(j)values(0);
mysql insert into t1_bdb(j)values(0);
mysql
i believe since 3.23.39 it should not be?
mysql create table t1_b(i int unsigned primary key
auto_increment, j int) type=bdb;
mysql create table t1_m(i int unsigned primary key
auto_increment, j int) type=myisam;
mysql insert into t1_bdb(j)values(0);
mysql insert into t1_bdb(j)values(0);
mysql
At 11/02/2002 05:21, Paul DuBois wrote:
At 4:10 +0700 2/11/02, Steven Haryanto wrote:
i believe since 3.23.39 it should not be?
BDB and MyISAM tables have different properties with respect to
AUTO_INCREMENT behavior.
i see, so this is an undocumented feature (i haven't seen this
in http
Hi folks,
The recent additions of storage handler for transaction-supporting table
confuses us. From what I read on the list, Innobase is generally much
faster than BerkeleyDB. But I can live with slower speed since my
application will not be expecting high rates. It is reliability and tested
