From: Gavin Towey Date: April 2 2010 8:04pm Subject: RE: MyISAM better than innodb for large files? List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/221129 Message-Id: <21A67E2153E64D48ACBD190732CB8591010DC8BA@site1-mailbox1.pmgi.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I disagree. There's nothing about his requirements that sounds like MyIsam= is a better solution. InnoDB should be your default for all tables, unles= s you have specific requirements that need myisam. One specific example of= an appropriate task for myisam is where you need very high insert throughp= ut, and you're not doing any updates/deletes concurrently. You want the crash safety and data integrity that comes with InnoDB. Even = more so as your dataset grows. It's performance is far better than myisam = tables for most OLTP users, and as your number of concurrent readers and wr= iters grows, the improvement in performance from using innodb over myisam b= ecomes more pronounced. Regards, Gavin Towey -----Original Message----- From: Carsten Pedersen [mailto:carsten@stripped] Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 12:58 PM To: Mitchell Maltenfort Cc: mysql@stripped Subject: Re: MyISAM better than innodb for large files? InnoDB won't give you much in terms of disk crash recovery. That's what backups are for. Where InnoDB does excel is if your database server dies while updating rows. If that happens, your database will come back up with sane data. For both table types, once the data has been flushed to disk, the data will still be there if your db server crashes. It does indeed sound like you will be better off using MyISAM. This will also reduce your disk space usage considerably. / Carsten Mitchell Maltenfort skrev: > I'm going to be setting up a MySQL database for a project. My reading > indicates that MyISAM (default) is going to be better than InnoDB for > the project but I want to be sure I have the trade-offs right. > > > This is going to be a very large data file -- many gigabytes -- only > used internally, and once installed perhaps updated once a year, > queried much more often. > > MyISAM apparently has the advantage in memory and time overheads. > > InnoDB's advantage seems to be better recovery from disk crashes. > > Should I stick with MyISAM (MySQL default), or does the recovery issue > mean I'm better off using InnoDB for an insurance policy? > > Inexperienced minds want to know -- ideally, from experienced minds. > > Thanks! > -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=3Dgtowey@stripped This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the= individual named. If you are not the named addressee, you are notified th= at reviewing, disseminating, disclosing, copying or distributing this e-mai= l is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail i= f you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your= system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-fre= e as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive l= ate or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept= liability for any loss or damage caused by viruses or errors or omissions = in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmis= sion. [FriendFinder Networks, Inc., 220 Humbolt court, Sunnyvale, CA 94089,= USA, FriendFinder.com