List:Cluster« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:pekka Date:November 10 2005 11:45pm
Subject:Re: Disk-based storage...5.1?
View as plain text  
> Which is totally unclear as to exactly how it will work. eg is it whole
> tables only on disk, partitions of tables etc.

Given _attributes_ on disk.  No indexed attributes in 5.1.
In particular PK must be in memory.

> More importantly, will there be a significant performance penalty?

Disk pages are cached (like in any real rdbms).  If cache hit ratio
is good, performance should be close to memory data.

> ...Performance was a lot poorer than InnoDB at the time.

InnoDB is within same process (mysqld).  NDB is networked.

-- 
Pekka Nousiainen, Software Engineer
MySQL AB, www.mysql.com
pekka@stripped +46 (0) 73 068 4978
Thread
Disk-based storage...5.1?Jason Williams10 Nov
  • Re: Disk-based storage...5.1?Adam Dixon10 Nov
    • Re: Disk-based storage...5.1?Simon Garner10 Nov
RE: Disk-based storage...5.1?Jason Williams11 Nov
  • Re: Disk-based storage...5.1?pekka11 Nov
    • Structures ReplicationFabricio Mota11 Nov
      • Re: Structures ReplicationStewart Smith11 Nov
        • RES: Structures ReplicationFabricio Mota11 Nov
          • Re: RES: Structures ReplicationStewart Smith1 Feb
    • Re: Disk-based storage...5.1?Mark Kirkwood14 Nov
      • Re: Disk-based storage...5.1?pekka14 Nov
      • Re: Disk-based storage...5.1?Mikael Ronström15 Nov
RE: Disk-based storage...5.1?Jason Williams11 Nov
  • Re: Disk-based storage...5.1?Simon Garner11 Nov
  • Re: Disk-based storage...5.1?pekka11 Nov
    • Re: Disk-based storage...5.1?Kenji HIROHAMA11 Nov
  • RE: Disk-based storage...5.1?Stewart Smith12 Nov
RE: Disk-based storage...5.1?Jason Williams15 Nov
  • RE: Disk-based storage...5.1?Stewart Smith15 Nov
RE: Disk-based storage...5.1?Jason Williams15 Nov
  • Re: Disk-based storage...5.1?Simon Garner15 Nov