Re: [nyphp-talk] MyISAM vs InnoDB

2010-02-04 Thread Hans Zaunere
> I'm sure we've all heard one version or another of which was faster. > Among the people I've spoken to in person the consensus was MyISAM. But It depends on what "faster" means. MyISAM has about a third of the storage/RAM/processing footprint. And because it doesn't do multi-versioning and row

Re: [nyphp-talk] MyISAM vs InnoDB

2010-01-22 Thread Chris Snyder
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Jake McGraw wrote: > This best sums up my feelings: > > http://jakemcgraw.com/imgs/nyphp-solr.jpg > This post should win some kind of prize! Thanks for the laugh. ___ New York PHP Users Group Community Talk Mailing Lis

Re: [nyphp-talk] MyISAM vs InnoDB

2010-01-21 Thread Jake McGraw
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Eddie Drapkin wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Jake McGraw wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Matt Juszczak wrote: InnoDB for everything but tables that require fulltext search, which is not yet supported on InnoDB. >>> >>> Can always u

Re: [nyphp-talk] MyISAM vs InnoDB

2010-01-21 Thread Eddie Drapkin
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Jake McGraw wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Matt Juszczak wrote: >>> InnoDB for everything but tables that require fulltext search, which >>> is not yet supported on InnoDB. >> >> Can always use something like lucene for this. > > Yea, but then you've go

Re: [nyphp-talk] MyISAM vs InnoDB

2010-01-21 Thread Rob Marscher
On Jan 21, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Jake McGraw wrote: > InnoDB for everything but tables that require fulltext search, which > is not yet supported on InnoDB. +1. Another use for MyISAM is a log table that you never delete from and rarely read from. But definitely go with InnoDB for everything - the

Re: [nyphp-talk] MyISAM vs InnoDB

2010-01-21 Thread Jake McGraw
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Matt Juszczak wrote: >> InnoDB for everything but tables that require fulltext search, which >> is not yet supported on InnoDB. > > Can always use something like lucene for this. Yea, but then you've got to keep a Tomcat instance up and know Java or use a PHP impl

Re: [nyphp-talk] MyISAM vs InnoDB

2010-01-21 Thread Eddie Drapkin
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Jake McGraw wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Eddie Drapkin wrote: >> The bottom line is InnoDB is transactional, (configured properly) ACiD >> compliant, doesn't write-lock entire tables and supports foreign keys. >>  Performance, next to these "features

Re: [nyphp-talk] MyISAM vs InnoDB

2010-01-21 Thread Matt Juszczak
InnoDB for everything but tables that require fulltext search, which is not yet supported on InnoDB. Can always use something like lucene for this. -Matt ___ New York PHP Users Group Community Talk Mailing List http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/

Re: [nyphp-talk] MyISAM vs InnoDB

2010-01-21 Thread Jake McGraw
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Eddie Drapkin wrote: > The bottom line is InnoDB is transactional, (configured properly) ACiD > compliant, doesn't write-lock entire tables and supports foreign keys. >  Performance, next to these "features," isn't really a concern, IMO. > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 a

Re: [nyphp-talk] MyISAM vs InnoDB

2010-01-21 Thread Eddie Drapkin
The bottom line is InnoDB is transactional, (configured properly) ACiD compliant, doesn't write-lock entire tables and supports foreign keys. Performance, next to these "features," isn't really a concern, IMO. On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Lester Leong wrote: > I'm sure we've all heard one v

[nyphp-talk] MyISAM vs InnoDB

2010-01-21 Thread Lester Leong
I'm sure we've all heard one version or another of which was faster. Among the people I've spoken to in person the consensus was MyISAM. But I recently came across a Falcon benchmark online that showed InnoDB being the fastest. I'm sure the real answer is "it depends on your application", but... an