In InnoDB, transaction compliance with ACID requirements is said to be
greater. Then again, managing tablespaces is more cumbersome than file-
based tables, and there aren't as many "goodies" available, like
geospatial queries for MyISAM. So, I agree, it is the same either way.
The long term "elephant in the living room" is whether or not Oracle
will somehow influence InnoDB licensing or architecture in some
nefarious way. But, in that case, switching from InnoDB back to MyISAM
is pretty direct.
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:23:09 +1030, jbonnett@stripped said:
> To the best of my knowledge, I don't think it matters. Either table
> type can handle that many records. The issues with that many records
> are more likely to be having the correct indexes defined and being
> sensible about the sort of queries you process. Adequate computing
> hardware will help too.
> John B.
> -----Original Message----- From: Jorge Bastos
> [mailto:mysql.jorge@stripped] Sent: Friday, 24 March 2006 10:33 PM
> To: win32@stripped Subject: Fw: MyISAM or InnoDB?
> Nobody answered me :-(
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jorge Bastos"
> <mysql.jorge@stripped> To: <win32@stripped> Sent: Wednesday,
> March 22, 2006 12:40 AM Subject: MyISAM or InnoDB?
> Hi people,
> I'd like to ask a thing, with a support for a table with about
> 500.000 /
> 700.000 records and another with about 5.000.000/10.000.000 what would
> you sugest? MyISAM or InnoDB? i don't need any special features
> that exist in InnoDB, i'm just worried if there's any problem for
> the tables for the large amount of records.
Jan Theodore Galkowski (o°)