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 databases.
List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/227663
Message-Id: <2E7DD7ADE53B044C8C8BCD9C5829E1EB1487607EA6@SP2-EX07VS01.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

There should be little or no difference.

If you are using thousands of tables, you might encounter overhead in openi=
ng 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=3D1.

> -----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.
>=20
> hi every one
>=20
>   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.
>=20
> please let me know the difference.
>=20
> --
> 3murthy
>=20
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe:    http://lists.mysql.com/mysql