On 02/21/13 03:44, Uwe Schuerkamp wrote:
> What strategy would you suggest to "shrink" an innodb-based DB short
> of dumping, dropping and re-importing it? I feel more comfortable with
> the file-base approach probably because it resembles the dearly loved
> MyISAM behaviour ;)
That "dearly loved" behavior isn't such a great thing when you're
working with a customer with a hundred thousand tables. ;)
> Can you put a number on the increased memory consumption?
The increased memory consumption is incremental. The increased disk
consumption can be significant.
That said, I'm given to understand that innodb_file_per_table is on by
default in MySQL 5.6. I don't yet know the rationale behind this. It
should be noted that 5.6 does also have a copy-table-for-export
capability, which creates a standalone tablespace that *IS* portable and
can be moved and imported into another MySQL server.
--
Phil Stracchino, CDK#2 DoD#299792458 ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
ala...@caerllewys.net ala...@metrocast.net p...@co.ordinate.org
Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, SQL wrangler, Free Stater
It's not the years, it's the mileage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
