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
[email protected] 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
[email protected] 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]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
