On Nov 29, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Claudio Nanni wrote:
> This is not to say that MySQL could not have more of the file management
> features. For example, the ability to add or remove datafiles on the fly and the
> ability to detach tablespaces as collections of tables.
> That's where MySQL(read InnoDB) got stuck actually, it never introduced a powerful
> datafiles management system,
> and that is where Oracle excels (as far as being almost a O.S.) with multiple level
> of abstractions, just think of ASM.
> It is actually the part of Oracle I like most as well as the really "oraclish" way to
> get stats out of it!
> The 'problem' with MySQL is that it is so easy to start with it that people do not
> realize that is also a real RDBMS.
Yes, Oracle has features of the known kind. But, if we consider the wishlist for InnoDB,
then on top there would be an
ability to add files without stopping database (that is without innodb tablespaces),
followed by the ability to control
which files are part of the database (information schema of that).
It looks like at some point they have decided that the file per table thing will cover all
needs. Well, it doesn't. I personally
do not like dealing with 50G files should individual table grow to this size. It will be
much better managed with a larger collection
of smaller files, without innodb tablespaces. It is after I have those I would want the
features like removing files or compacting