List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Rick James Date:June 14 2012 7:19pm
Subject:RE: Is there any performance difference, maintaining separate
ibdata files for each and every table insted of having one singl tabale for
all databa...
View as plain text  
There should be little or no difference.

If you are using thousands of tables, you might encounter overhead in opening the .ibd
files.
If you are tight on disk space, a single ibdata1 might be more efficient at reusing free
blocks.
OTOH, if you shrink or drop a big table, the freed space is not returned to the OS if you
have a singe ibdata1.

In most cases, I recommend innodb_file_per_table=1.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pothanaboyina Trimurthy [mailto:skd.trimurthy@stripped]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:58 AM
> To: mysql@stripped
> Subject: Is there any performance difference, maintaining separate
> ibdata files for each and every table insted of having one singl tabale
> for all databases.
> 
> hi every one
> 
>   Is there any performance difference, maintaining separate ibdata
> files for each and every table insted of having one singl tabale for
> all databases, for InnoDB Storage Engine.
> 
> please let me know the difference.
> 
> --
> 3murthy
> 
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe:    http://lists.mysql.com/mysql

Thread
Is there any performance difference, maintaining separate ibdatafiles for each and every table insted of having one singl tabale for all databases.Pothanaboyina Trimurthy15 May
  • RE: Is there any performance difference, maintaining separateibdata files for each and every table insted of having one singl tabale forall databases.Rick James14 Jun
    • Re: Is there any performance difference, maintaining separate ibdatafiles for each and every table insted of having one singl tabale for all databases...Prabhat Kumar14 Jun