> I have to do some re-design of a website database that has quickly > outgrown itself. I'm trying to migrate to MySQL Cluster 5.0.15.
Outgrown size or performance? Cluster 5.0 is memory based, databases are limited to a few gigs. Throughput can be good if application is _massively_ parallel. But the unique feature of Cluster is redundancy. > Mostly I've used VarChar fieldtypes in the past, but I want to make sure > I'm using the best fieldtype for alphanumeric indexed fields. In Cluster 5.0 Varchar is stored with maximum length. This changes in > 5.0. For indexing, non-binary character sets have high overhead. > Some of the data I'm storing will be fixed in length and some will be > variable in length. I've thought of just going to TINYTEXT and TEXT > fields. TINYTEXT is not useful, just use Varchar. TEXT is a form of BLOB and the bulk of it (in Cluster) is stored in a separate table. This is usually not efficient. I hope this helps to decide if Cluster is right solution for you. -- Pekka Nousiainen, Software Engineer MySQL AB, www.mysql.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] +46 (0) 73 068 4978 -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
