okay, yeah...that was a good idea.
when running a count with a where clause, the MyISAM table took 18.19 seconds, and the
same query on the cluster took 35.97 seconds.
this still seems like a pretty big difference...are there special table design
optimizations for the cluster tables? or it may be that I did not allocate enough memory
to indexes?
-L
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Weiss [mailto:pgweiss@stripped]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 12:25 PM
> To: Crouch, Luke H.; cluster@stripped
> Subject: Re: performance question
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:47:40 -0500, Crouch, Luke H.
> <Luke.Crouch@stripped> wrote:
>
> > I thought the tables in the cluster are of type NDB, so
> they aren't
> > InnoDB or MyISAM...the table just happened to be in MyISAM on the
> > regular mysqld.
> >
>
> You were comparing select count(*) of a NDB table to a MyISAM
> table. The
> MyISAM table is, of course, not in the cluster. I was merely
> suggesting
> that if you instead compared it to an InnoDB table that was
> not in the
> cluster, the comparison would be more fair.
>
> > do you know how I can remove the record count on the
> regular mysqld
> > MyISAM tables? then I could see how long it actually takes
> to do the
> > full count on MyISAM and it may be similar in length of
> time to the
> > count on the NDB tables.
> >
> > is there not a way to have the cluster keep a count record
> as well? in
> > the same kind of way as MyISAM?
> >
>
> I don't think you can do either of these things. Howewer,
> you might be
> able to trick mysqld into not using the count in the MyISAM table by
> adding a where clause that just happens to be true for all records.
>
>
