| List: | General Discussion | « Previous MessageNext Message » | |
| From: | Ow Mun Heng | Date: | October 9 2006 2:15pm |
| Subject: | InnoDB, 1 file per table or 1 BIG table? | ||
| View as plain text | |||
Hi All, Just wanted to know if it would be faster/better to implement this option into my.cnf innodb_file_per_table = 1 which would essentially make each table a file on it's own rather than have it all in 1 file. My belief is that it would be slightly more advantageous compared to 1 BIG file. eg: 1 10GB file would perform poorer than 10 1GB files. Is this statement true and how far is is true?
| Thread | ||
|---|---|---|
| • InnoDB, 1 file per table or 1 BIG table? | Ow Mun Heng | 9 Oct |
| • Re: InnoDB, 1 file per table or 1 BIG table? | Dan Nelson | 9 Oct |
| • Re: InnoDB, 1 file per table or 1 BIG table? | James Eaton | 9 Oct |
| • Re: InnoDB, 1 file per table or 1 BIG table? | Dan Nelson | 9 Oct |
| • Re: InnoDB, 1 file per table or 1 BIG table? | Bruce Dembecki | 9 Oct |
| • Re: InnoDB, 1 file per table or 1 BIG table? | Ow Mun Heng | 10 Oct |
| • Re: InnoDB, 1 file per table or 1 BIG table? | James Eaton | 9 Oct |
| • Re: InnoDB, 1 file per table or 1 BIG table? | Ow Mun Heng | 10 Oct |
