From: Carsten Pedersen (carstenbitbybit.dk)
Date: Fri Apr 02 2010 - 14:57:59 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

InnoDB won't give you much in terms of disk crash recovery. That's what
backups are for.

Where InnoDB does excel is if your database server dies while updating
rows. If that happens, your database will come back up with sane data.

For both table types, once the data has been flushed to disk, the data
will still be there if your db server crashes.

It does indeed sound like you will be better off using MyISAM. This will
also reduce your disk space usage considerably.

/ Carsten

Mitchell Maltenfort skrev:
> I'm going to be setting up a MySQL database for a project. My reading
> indicates that MyISAM (default) is going to be better than InnoDB for
> the project but I want to be sure I have the trade-offs right.
>
>
> This is going to be a very large data file -- many gigabytes -- only
> used internally, and once installed perhaps updated once a year,
> queried much more often.
>
> MyISAM apparently has the advantage in memory and time overheads.
>
> InnoDB's advantage seems to be better recovery from disk crashes.
>
> Should I stick with MyISAM (MySQL default), or does the recovery issue
> mean I'm better off using InnoDB for an insurance policy?
>
> Inexperienced minds want to know -- ideally, from experienced minds.
>
> Thanks!
>

--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]