MySQL Forums
Forum List  »  Memory Storage Engine

Re: engine=memory versus query_cache
Posted by: Ingo Strüwing
Date: March 31, 2006 01:29AM

Hi,

I might be misunderstanding your question(s). Please ask again in this case.

I agree that a table that does not need to be stored on disk is a candidate for a memory table. Regardless of the type of statements executed on it. But please keep in mind that the size of a memory table is much more limited than a MyISAM table.

I also agree that a table with much more selects than changes is a candidate for the query cache. But the query cache is active by default. You just may want to enlarge it if the hit rate seems insufficient for you.

There is just one query cache. But you can turn it on and off for every connection individually if you like.

All SELECTs for all table types are cached unless individualy disabled per connection or even per SELECT SQL_NO_CACHE.

If you change to a memory table, its SELECTs will also be cached. But if these are relatively seldom for your table, it should be no problem.

You may already have read this, but just in case:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/query-cache.html

Regards

Ingo Strüwing, Senior Software Developer - Storage Engines
MySQL AB, www.mysql.com

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject
Views
Written By
Posted
10673
March 30, 2006 11:46AM
Re: engine=memory versus query_cache
5426
March 31, 2006 01:29AM


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.