Thanks Mike. I think testing ultimately determines how
efficient heterogeneous engine joins are. I just
wanted to know if someone had issues with them in a
heavy-load environment.
--- mos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 04:00 PM 12/21/2004, Homam S.A. wrote:
> >Thanks Mike for the information.
At 04:00 PM 12/21/2004, Homam S.A. wrote:
Thanks Mike for the information. Yes, Emmett mentioned
the same thing in a private message, and it seems that
MyISAM is exactly what I'm looking for: a
heavily-indexed large table that will be also indexed
for full-text search and built off-line -- no updat
Homam S.A. wrote:
I'm new to MySQL and I was wondering which storage
engine is the best choice for heavily-indexed,
read-mostly data.
From skimming over the documentation, it seems that
MyISAM is a better choice since it doesn't have the
transactional overhead. Yet I'm worried that it's
becoming de
Thanks Mike for the information. Yes, Emmett mentioned
the same thing in a private message, and it seems that
MyISAM is exactly what I'm looking for: a
heavily-indexed large table that will be also indexed
for full-text search and built off-line -- no updates
whatsoever.
However, I will be joining
At 06:37 PM 12/20/2004, you wrote:
I'm new to MySQL and I was wondering which storage
engine is the best choice for heavily-indexed,
read-mostly data.
From skimming over the documentation, it seems that
MyISAM is a better choice since it doesn't have the
transactional overhead. Yet I'm worried that
I'm new to MySQL and I was wondering which storage
engine is the best choice for heavily-indexed,
read-mostly data.
>From skimming over the documentation, it seems that
MyISAM is a better choice since it doesn't have the
transactional overhead. Yet I'm worried that it's
becoming depricated and won
