On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:58:19PM -0400, Michael Bacarella wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:29:34PM -0400, Ryan Shrout wrote:
> > Well, here are some quick stats on the server when its running:
> > Key Reads/Key Requests = 0.000936 (Cache hit = 99.999064%)
> > Queries/second = 129.574 (/hour = 466465.492)
> > Slow Queries/second = 0.000 (/hour = 0.000)
> > Uptime = 2 hr 49 min 23 sec
> > Are there any drawbacks to using InnoDB or DBD? If they are really better,
> > why aren't they always used?
> InnoDB is considered "unstable" by some people.
Let's call it "nearly stable" :-)
I've got an application I'm planning to build on InnoDB next week.
It'll be a fairly heavy update system that gets pounded during the
day. I'm doing it after having heard the positive experience that
others have had with InnoDB.
And if all goes well, the application will be live and running in
production by the end of the week.
> Going with InnoDB also means you may lose some MySQLisms; like each
> table no longer being represented as 3 easily transported files.
> BDB, I'm not sure. Perhaps there are speed issues?
Yeah, BDB is probably going to become the ugly stepchild of MySQL
table handlers. It's not really seeing active development, and InnoDB
will probably easily handle 95% of the cases that people might look to
> They're also not defaults*, which means that they need to be added
> in through extra effort. Most people probably don't want to bother
> until they absolutely have to.
In MySQL-Max they are, but you knew that. :-)
And in MySQL 4.0, I believe InnoDB will be compiled in by default.
(At least I believe that's what Monty said a while back.)
Jeremy D. Zawodny, <jzawodn@stripped>
Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Finance
Desk: (408) 349-7878 Fax: (408) 349-5454 Cell: (408) 685-5936
MySQL 3.23.41-max: up 34 days, processed 742,442,308 queries (252/sec. avg)