List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Jocelyn Fournier Date:January 26 2007 9:05am
Subject:Re: Innodb, why not?
View as plain text  
Hi,

According to the manuel, Falcon is not yet optimized for performances, 
so benchmarking it would not be fair.
And I do not recommand using the binary alpha release in production, you 
could corrupt badly your database (some bugs has only been fixed a few 
days ago concerning this corruption).

Regards,
   Jocelyn Fournier
   www.mesdiscussions.net

mos a écrit :
> At 03:54 PM 1/25/2007, you wrote:
>> > Another thing to consider is:
>>
>> heh, silly mail client :).  Another thing to consider is this:
>>
>> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/falcon/en/index.html
>>
>> Though it's "Not recommended for production use", I've heard people 
>> still use
>> it in production environments.
>>
>> -- 
> 
> Chris,
>       Falcon doesn't currently support RI. And like Innodb, it requires 
> its own table space so it too may get fragmented.
> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/falcon/en/se-falcon-createdb.html and will 
> likely require packing (sweeping?) from time to time. It would be nice 
> to see some benchmarks compared to InnoDb and MyISAM.
> 
> Mike 
Thread
Innodb, why not?Olaf Stein25 Jan
  • Re: Innodb, why not?Brent Baisley25 Jan
  • Re: Innodb, why not?Chris White25 Jan
    • Re: Innodb, why not?Chris White25 Jan
      • Re: Innodb, why not?mos26 Jan
        • Re: Innodb, why not?Jocelyn Fournier26 Jan
  • Re: Innodb, why not?Martijn Tonies25 Jan