Didn't even know that one existed. It has an attraction, esp. in
terms of backing up the data.
But the link refers to the performance benefit in accessing one line
at a time. Supposing I was doing a search for all records where a
particular string is present -- what would the overhead be in the
searching of the compressed file?
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Walter Heck - OlinData.com
<lists@stripped> wrote:
> Ah, if you are single-user and updating really is a special occasion
> that is completely in your control, you could even use compressed
> MyISAM. That makes the table read-only though, but it does give
> performance benefits:
> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/4.1/en/myisampack.html
>
> good luck!
>
> Walter Heck
> Engineer @ Open Query (http://openquery.com)
>
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 08:50, Mitchell Maltenfort <mmalten@stripped> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>> writers grows, the improvement in performance from using innodb over
>>>> myisam becomes more pronounced.
>>>
>>> His scenario is "perhaps updated once a year", though, so crash recovery and
>>> multiple writer performance is not important.
>>
>> And the concurrent reader and writer number is set at one, unless I
>> undergo mitosis or something.
>>
>> --
>> MySQL General Mailing List
>> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
>> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
>>
>>
>
