 | | | Access speed INNODB VS. MyISAM | Access speed INNODB VS. MyISAM 2006-06-04 - By Ware Adams
Back
On Jun 3, 2006, at 7:54 PM, Richard wrote:
> I have been using a database for several years that uses many
> 'lookup' style
> tables. i.e. no updates to these tables. I dumped the whole thing
> into an INNODB
> database for simplicity, but I now wonder if I can speed things up
> if I put only
> my updatable tables in INNODB (I need row level locking for these)
> and put all
> the lookup tables in MyISAM.
>
> The benchmarks I have looked at don't seem to reveal either as a
> clear winner,
> but I am probably not interpreting them properly.
Probably the only real answer is to benchmark your particular
application.
That said, for any table that has high frequency writes while others
are trying to read or write your only option is InnoDB. Similarly,
if you want to do a live backup of a large table without shutting off
write access you have to use InnoDB.
If you are doing simple reads, even at very high volume you'll
probably find MyISAM as fast or faster.
You can mix and match them in general to get the right performance
for each table. There are a few things that InnoDB won't handle
(fulltext searches, some others) that will require MyISAM, but in
general they are pretty much complete substitutes.
InnoDB tables do take up more space than MyISAM in general, but other
than that we've found no real downside to making everything InnoDB
(other than the fact that the information sources are a little less
common for InnoDB).
From what you say, it sounds like all InnoDB or InnoDB for the
tables with write and MyISAM for the others would work for you.
Good luck,
Ware Adams
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=mysql@(protected)
|
|
|