tech: MySQL/MariaDB backend, version 5+
Anybody know why the same field structures but using the Inno engine type causes a table size to be much larger than if it's a MyISAM table type? I do realize the benefits of using InnoDB for transactions, btw.
Just curious why MyISAM smaller, given same structure.
Thanks, --Mike
In general I would say that the designers of the InnoDB data storage file system were more concerned with transactional accuracy and row locking than they were with space efficiency.
Here's a good concise (space efficient!) article that explains the details. http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2009/01/innodb-myisam-and-disk-space_16.html
Mike Copeland
mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com wrote:
tech: MySQL/MariaDB backend, version 5+
Anybody know why the same field structures but using the Inno engine type causes a table size to be much larger than if it's a MyISAM table type? I do realize the benefits of using InnoDB for transactions, btw.
Just curious why MyISAM smaller, given same structure.
Thanks, --Mike
[excessive quoting removed by server]
Perfect. Thanks!
On 2016-03-10 12:02, Mike Copeland wrote:
In general I would say that the designers of the InnoDB data storage file system were more concerned with transactional accuracy and row locking than they were with space efficiency.
Here's a good concise (space efficient!) article that explains the details. http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2009/01/innodb-myisam-and-disk-space_16.html
Mike Copeland
mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com wrote:
tech: MySQL/MariaDB backend, version 5+
Anybody know why the same field structures but using the Inno engine type causes a table size to be much larger than if it's a MyISAM table type? I do realize the benefits of using InnoDB for transactions, btw.
Just curious why MyISAM smaller, given same structure.
Thanks, --Mike
[excessive quoting removed by server]
But to your point, those InnoDB files can be fat little piggies!
The other problem is that they tend to grow and never shrink. My understanding (likely flawed) is that you have to create a new duplicate table, copy the data across, delete the old table, and rename the new. Not unlike what Foxpro does in the background with a pack.
I started using MyISAM tables exclusively, until I ran into locking deadlocks that hung everyone up. Switched the affected tables to InnoDB and have never had a problem since.
Mike Copeland
mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com wrote:
Perfect. Thanks!
On 2016-03-10 12:02, Mike Copeland wrote:
In general I would say that the designers of the InnoDB data storage file system were more concerned with transactional accuracy and row locking than they were with space efficiency.
Here's a good concise (space efficient!) article that explains the details. http://mysqlha.blogspot.com/2009/01/innodb-myisam-and-disk-space_16.html
Mike Copeland
mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com wrote:
tech: MySQL/MariaDB backend, version 5+
Anybody know why the same field structures but using the Inno engine type causes a table size to be much larger than if it's a MyISAM table type? I do realize the benefits of using InnoDB for transactions, btw.
Just curious why MyISAM smaller, given same structure.
Thanks, --Mike
[excessive quoting removed by server]
-
mbsoftwaresolutions＠mbsoftwaresolutions.com -
Mike Copeland