Re: Choosing tables to convert to InnoDB

[Manuel Cameselle]

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):

SET AUTOCOMMIT=0;
/* Several SQL statements ... */
COMMIT;

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).


Regards,
Manuel.