Re: Cluster appropriate for in-memory database?

[Mikael Ronström]

Hi,
With the current release of MySQL Cluster (4.1) it is not really a performance booster.
With 5.0 this has improved and with 5.1 it will improve even further.
MySQL Cluster 4.1 is mainly a HA solution.

Rgrds Mikael


Nick Loman wrote:
> Hello
>
> I have a database which has a high transaction
> throughput, with a relatively high writer:reader
> ratio, lets say 1 write to 20 reads. ACID-style
> reliability is not important for this database in
> the event of power loss.
>
> As the database is quite small I would like to try
> an "in memory" configuration to see if performance
> can be helped.
>
> As I understand it, a database run with MySQL
> Cluster will be "in memory", however I am unclear
> whether that means performance will be improved
> generally due to the other overheads that are
> imposed.
>
> The MySQL "MEMORY" engine is probably not suitable
> as I do require recovery from persistent store in
> the event of a reboot.
>
> Would MySQL Cluster be the appropriate solution
> for this problem, or are there other MySQL
> configuration modes that might acheive what I want
> with less overhead? E.g. could I tune my.cnf to
> keep a set of tables in memory at all times?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Nick.