MySQL Forums
Forum List  »  InnoDB

Re: Choosing tables to convert to InnoDB
Posted by: Manuel Cameselle
Date: May 16, 2005 03:19AM

Hi Geert,

Thanks for your answer:

> Couple of things: if you are not using
> transactions by default (though, you can set that
> in my.cnf). Using transaction can be sometimes

I've re-read innodb documentation again but found nothing about disabling transactions in my.cnf. Instead i've found: "...all user activity occurs inside a transaction... MySQL always starts a new connection with autocommit enabled."

I know it's better to do (when it is possible, and in my case is not probable):

/* Several SQL statements ... */

but it still seems impossible to me to disable totally transactions.

> Maybe you can split up the big table in smaller
> tables and use MERGE engine?

I'm considering that and also replication for performance improvement. It seems a good idea the Web pages doing SELECTs to the slave server and INSERTs/UPDATEs to the master.

> If you are not going to use transactions, then why
> not stay with MyISAM? InnoDB also uses a bit more
> memory, might also be important.

Because "table lock style" of MyISAM is giving me big trouble with performance. Our application uses high user interaction and real-time data, so "row lock style" of InnoDB should provide us with stable performance (though worse that the one MyISAM offers when it doesn't lock the table).


Options: ReplyQuote

Written By
Re: Choosing tables to convert to InnoDB
May 16, 2005 03:19AM

Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.

Content reproduced on this site is the property of the respective copyright holders. It is not reviewed in advance by Oracle and does not necessarily represent the opinion of Oracle or any other party.