myisamchk vs OPTIMIZE TABLE

2004-02-08 Thread Mark Hazen
Hi all! Running 4.0.17. I hope this isn't a stupid question, but it appears that OPTIMIZE TABLE is NOT equivalent to: myisamchk --quick --check-only-changed --sort-index --analyze Maybe I'm missing something, but OPTIMIZE TABLE rebuilds both the data file and the index file (I see a TMD and TMM

RE: myisamchk vs OPTIMIZE TABLE

2004-02-08 Thread Mark Hazen
no deleted rows in it? I don't mind running either OPTIMIZE TABLE (which apparently rebuilds everything and sorts it) or just the myisamchk to sort the index. Does anyone know which one might get me more mileage? Thanks! Mark > -----Original Message- > From: Mark Hazen [mai

RE: myisamchk vs OPTIMIZE TABLE

2004-02-08 Thread Mark Hazen
> What's the nature of your query? > > If it's using an integer index and that's what your searching on, then > having > it physically sorted is a Good Thing. If you're table-scanning your > main table, you're toast anyway. Finding ways of making that faster is > the > way to go, maybe partitioning

RE: myisamchk vs OPTIMIZE TABLE

2004-02-08 Thread Mark Hazen
> You know, this might sound strange, but does the performance drop off at > all if you lose the indices? A table scan of rows 8 bytes wide is going > to be pretty damn quick. Plus there's a lot less maintenance to do > without > indices and no risk of them getting corrupted. A full table scan is

RE: Attn: MySQL AB: we need 3.23.5x NOW !

2002-06-07 Thread Mark Hazen
> Can someone *please* pick up the dropped ball on the > release schedule and run with it ? It's not such > a big deal for ISAM table users but it's a very big > deal for InnoDB tables... > MySQL AB: The least you could do is say: OK, we have this X problem and still working out Y... but we anti