Yes, definitely. We tried both, MyISAM performs way better. On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:58 AM, brett skinner <tatty.dishcl...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback Alex. Are you suggesting that MyISAM is perhaps > better? > > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Alejandro Guerrieri < > alejandro.guerri...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> InnoDB is a bad idea if you're expecting to have a big number of DLR's >> waiting: The DLR engine uses "SELECT COUNT(*)" which happens to be painfully >> slow on InnoDB. >> >> The data won't be minimal, and you'll end up having to manually purge old >> records (sometimes not all DLR's are received back from the carrier). >> >> I suggest you to have two indexes: one on smsc + ts and the other one on >> stamp (to be able to delete old records). >> >> Regards, >> >> Alex >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:40 AM, brett skinner <tatty.dishcl...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi Users >>> >>> I know this question is more to do with MySQL than Kannel but does anyone >>> here have a recommendation on the engine type for the MySQL table. Does >>> Kannel have a preference? At the moment I am using innoDB. >>> >>> With regards to indexes on the table are there any recommendations? >>> Looking at the debug it seems that the delete statement is using the smsc >>> and the received columns so an index covering those columns should be fine. >>> Although because this table seems to hold transient data so the amount of >>> data in here should be minimal and table scans would probably be quicker >>> than using the index. Also maintaining an index is additional work for the >>> MySQL DB so I would be inclined to leave the table with no indexes. Does >>> anyone have any experience in this area and anything recommendations? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >> >> >
