Hi!
-Original Message-
From: David Felio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Heikki Tuuri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: Static or Dynamic rows -- which is faster?
On Monday, February 11, 2002, at 12:12 PM, Heikki Tuuri wrote:
for InnoDB 'dynamic rows
I have a large data set (15 mil rows) consisting of a datetime column
and a char(255) column. I seem to recall seeing something about
performance benefits for using static length rows with MyISAM tables,
and I've heard some argument for using dynamic length rows (e.g., use
varchar rather than
Eric,
for InnoDB 'dynamic rows', that is, rows where you define char columns as
VARCHAR, are faster because tables and indexes fit in smaller space.
Only in some rare cases where you want to avoid fragmentation caused by
updates which change a column length, a fixed-length CHAR(...) column can
Whoops, originally sent this to just Heikki.
On Monday, February 11, 2002, at 12:12 PM, Heikki Tuuri wrote:
for InnoDB 'dynamic rows', that is, rows where you define char columns as
VARCHAR, are faster because tables and indexes fit in smaller space.
Is there reasoning specific to InnoDB?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:48:10PM -0600, David Felio wrote:
Whoops, originally sent this to just Heikki.
On Monday, February 11, 2002, at 12:12 PM, Heikki Tuuri wrote:
for InnoDB 'dynamic rows', that is, rows where you define char columns as
VARCHAR, are faster because tables and indexes
