Eamon Daly wrote:
We have a table containing just one column that we use for
unique IDs:
CREATE TABLE `id_sequence` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) TYPE=MyISAM
Watching 'SHOW FULL PROCESSLIST' and reading the slow query
log shows the occasional backlog o
Hello.
If you have lots of concurrent updates and selects on the
same table, InnoDB usually has better performance. Use the
benchmarks to determine what configuration is preferred.
Super-smack for example allows you to write very flexible tests.
Be aware of different behavior of AUTO
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Eamon Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:05 PM
> Subject: Re: MyISAM vs. InnoDB for an AUTO_INCREMENT counter table
>
>
> > "Eamon Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/24/
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: MyISAM vs. InnoDB for an AUTO_INCREMENT counter table
"Eamon Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/24/2005 12:40:55 PM:
We have a table containing just one column that we use for
unique IDs:
CREATE TABLE `id_sequence` (
`i
"Eamon Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/24/2005 12:40:55 PM:
> We have a table containing just one column that we use for
> unique IDs:
>
> CREATE TABLE `id_sequence` (
> `id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
> PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
> ) TYPE=MyISAM
>
> Watching 'SHOW FULL PROCES
We have a table containing just one column that we use for
unique IDs:
CREATE TABLE `id_sequence` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) TYPE=MyISAM
Watching 'SHOW FULL PROCESSLIST' and reading the slow query
log shows the occasional backlog of locks. Has anyo
