RE: InnoDB vs MyISAM

[Jerry Schwartz]

InnoDB supports foreign keys, MyISAM does not.

MyISAM supports full text indices, InnoDB does not.

This is unfortunate. It has kept me using MyISAM where I'd rather use
InnoDB, although fortunately none of my applications are really hampered by
it.

The only work-around I can think of is to create a separate MyISAM table
that contains all of the fields you need for a full text index, and that
links back to the InnoDB table. This is very wasteful, but at least the
"main" table will have foreign keys and transaction recovery. The index
table would be easy to recreate if it were lost. In fact, you might want to
rebuild it periodically rather than maintain it in real time. This would
make your application run faster when doing updates and inserts, if you can
tolerate an index that isn't up-to-the-minute.

Regards,

Jerry Schwartz
Global Information Incorporated
195 Farmington Ave.
Farmington, CT 06032

860.674.8796 / FAX: [phone]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Octavian Rasnita [mailto:orasnita@stripped]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:38 AM
> To: mysql@stripped
> Subject: InnoDB vs MyISAM
>
> Hi,
>
> I have seen that by default some tables are created as InnoDB
> and some as
> MyISAM.
>
> I guess the table type is not chosen randomly. How is it
> chosen the table
> engine used?
>
> And is InnoDB recommended now?
>
> Does it support full text indexes? Or if not, is there a way
> of using full
> text indexes and foreign keys in MySQL?
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Octavian
>
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe:
> http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
>
>