On Jan 31, 2004, at 1:09 AM, Adam Goldstein wrote:
On Jan 30, 2004, at 10:25 AM, Bruce Dembecki wrote:
On Jan 28, 2004, at 12:01 PM, Bruce Dembecki wrote this wonderful
stuff:
So.. My tips for you:
1) Consider a switch to InnoDB, the performance hit was dramatic,
and it's
about SO much more
On Jan 28, 2004, at 12:01 PM, Bruce Dembecki wrote this wonderful stuff:
So.. My tips for you:
1) Consider a switch to InnoDB, the performance hit was dramatic, and it's
about SO much more than transactions (which we still don't do)!
Consider it switched! as soon as I find the way to do
On Jan 30, 2004, at 10:25 AM, Bruce Dembecki wrote:
On Jan 28, 2004, at 12:01 PM, Bruce Dembecki wrote this wonderful
stuff:
So.. My tips for you:
1) Consider a switch to InnoDB, the performance hit was dramatic,
and it's
about SO much more than transactions (which we still don't do)!
I don't think there would be any benefit to using InnoDB, at least not
from a transaction point of view
For the longest time I was reading the books and listening to the experts
and all I was hearing is InnoDB is great because it handles transactions.
Having little interest in transactions per
Problems on a G5/OSX/MySql4.0.17
I don't think there would be any benefit to using
InnoDB, at least not
from a transaction point of view
For the longest time I was reading the books and
listening to the experts
and all I was hearing is InnoDB is great because it
handles transactions.
Having
On 1/28/04 10:29 AM, stairwaymail-mysql at yahoo dot com wrote:
So should we always use InnoDB over BerkeleyBD? I was
under the impression Berkeley was faster and better at
handling transactions.
Dan
Eermm... That's outside my scope of expertise, my experiences have been
exclusively with
On Jan 28, 2004, at 12:01 PM, Bruce Dembecki wrote this wonderful stuff:
I don't think there would be any benefit to using InnoDB, at least not
from a transaction point of view
For the longest time I was reading the books and listening to the
experts
and all I was hearing is InnoDB is great
