On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:39:32AM -0700, Eric J. Schwertfeger wrote:
Aside from what's in the manual, I have a little to offer. I just
got InnoDB working yesterday, so take what I have to say with a
grain of salt.
And I'll add a bit, too. :-)
Gemini: Currently in Beta testing, with no
InnoDB definately provides more features that BDB, and is probably
going to be faster, Gemini isn't available yet. BDB might be more
complete/stable.
So I'd say Gemini is out of the picture unless you are looking longer
term. I'd do some testing with both we found some bugs in the 3.23.37
: 11 May 2001 06:10
To: Kevin McBrearty; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: InnoDB, BDB, and Gemini
InnoDB definately provides more features that BDB, and is probably
going to be faster, Gemini isn't available yet. BDB might be more
complete/stable.
So I'd say Gemini is out of the picture
Have you noticed a significant speed decline using Gemini tables?
RH
-Original Message-
From: Warren van der Merwe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 11:31 AM
To: 'Steve Ruby'; 'Kevin McBrearty'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: InnoDB, BDB, and Gemini
Goodday to you
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: InnoDB, BDB, and Gemini
Have you noticed a significant speed decline using Gemini tables?
RH
-Original Message-
From: Warren van der Merwe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 11:31 AM
To: 'Steve Ruby'; 'Kevin McBrearty'; [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Kevin McBrearty wrote:
I have re-read the appropriate manual sections several times, trying to
decide what is the best option for my database table types. I am using
3.32.37 on
Linux, and am torn between InnoDB, BDB, and Gemini table types. Transaction
handling is very