I have two questions in regards to the tablespace changes:
1 - You mention being able to store indexes in a seperate tablespace. How
far off is this for MySQL to implement? I would like to see FULLTEXT
indexes stored in seperate tablspace (seperate RAID channel) so the two
features (InnoDB FULLTEXT) would both need to be available.
2 - Is there any value to using Journaled file systems with the InnoDB
tablespaces? A new system I'm putting together will have seperate drives
for only InnoDB data. Is a Journaled file system extra overhead? If so, is
Raw significantly more efficient? How does this choice effect backup
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Heikki Tuuri" <Heikki.Tuuri@stripped>
> To: <mysql@stripped>
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:55 PM
> Subject: Re: MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.16 is released + sneak peek of 4.1.1
> > Eduardo,
> > to make the user interface simple, I decided to take the table per file
> > approach. Each .ibd file is internally a 'tablespace'.
> > The simple approach I chose is similar to how MyISAM now works. I
> > would be nice for current MySQL users.
> > In Oracle, one can store several tables into a single named tablespace,
> > can also split indexes and data of a single table to separate
> > Nothing prevents adding those features to InnoDB, too. It just requires
> > syntax in CREATE TABLE to specify these options.
> > Best regards,
> > Heikki
> > Innobase Oy
> > http://www.innodb.com
> > InnoDB - transactions, row level locking, and foreign keys for MySQL
> > InnoDB Hot Backup - hot backup tool for InnoDB which also backs up
> > tables
> > ..........................
> > From: "Eduardo D Piovesam" (eduardo@stripped)
> > Subject: Re: MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.16 is released + sneak peek of 4.1.1
> > View this article only
> > Newsgroups: mailing.database.myodbc
> > Date: 2003-10-23 14:43:28 PST
> > (Sorry for the last email, it's not complete).
> > Hello Heikki,
> > Sorry, but I didn't understand the concept of tablespace applied. It's
> > different from Oracle, right?
> > AFAIK, tablespace is utilized to logically group "tables" into one (or
> > files.
> > And to group "indexes" into another files...
> > But you said that the each table (with its indexes) will be in one
> > is there an reason? Is it better than "split" tables and indexes?
> > Thank you.
> > Eduardo
> > --
> > MySQL General Mailing List
> > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> > To unsubscribe: