Re: Cluster appropriate for in-memory database?

[Mikael Ronström]

Hi,
The best storage engine where transactions are not so important and
speed is important and recoverability is important is MyISAM.

Rgrds Mikael


Mikael Ronstrom wrote:
> 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.