Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 19, 2005 10:00 PM
Hi,
I'm sorry to say so, but your article is rather incomplete. Someone already said that only one ALTER statement would do the conversion. Your method, though has the benefit of having a backup. Also, as someone said, you forgot to talk about the rollback, that is as important as the commit. In my opinion, an introduction to transactions would have been welcomed.
I think it is incomplete since you failed to enumerate all the benefits of InnoDB and explaining the consequences of such a change.
InnoDB use an innovative lock mechanism, while MyISAM uses table locks. It also implements all four levels of isolation and referential integrity. You can get much better concurrency with InnoDB, since it user row-level locks and a version-control-like mechanism (called MVCC to make sure no action is uselessly stopped by a lock. Of course, this increases the CPU overhead. There are also other differences (indexes, for example).
For the question of disk usage, I am curious to see where you got your numbers? Directly from file sizes? I hope not.
Backups more difficult? Not really, as you can still use mysqldump just like you did with MyISAM tables, but you can't do hot backups without the software sold by InnoDB, and its, in my opinion, reasonably priced (by this, I mean that if you have the volume to need hot backups absolutely, the 1300USD$ for the perpetual licence won't scare you off).
Also, you should have warned the readers that they may loose functionnality when switching to InnoDB. Count()s will be slower and full-text indexing is not supported in InnoDB. One must make sure this will not affect the design or performance ot the application.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Rather incomplete
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 19, 2005 10:00 PMI'm sorry to say so, but your article is rather incomplete. Someone already said that only one ALTER statement would do the conversion. Your method, though has the benefit of having a backup. Also, as someone said, you forgot to talk about the rollback, that is as important as the commit. In my opinion, an introduction to transactions would have been welcomed.
I think it is incomplete since you failed to enumerate all the benefits of InnoDB and explaining the consequences of such a change.
InnoDB use an innovative lock mechanism, while MyISAM uses table locks. It also implements all four levels of isolation and referential integrity. You can get much better concurrency with InnoDB, since it user row-level locks and a version-control-like mechanism (called MVCC to make sure no action is uselessly stopped by a lock. Of course, this increases the CPU overhead. There are also other differences (indexes, for example).
For the question of disk usage, I am curious to see where you got your numbers? Directly from file sizes? I hope not.
Backups more difficult? Not really, as you can still use mysqldump just like you did with MyISAM tables, but you can't do hot backups without the software sold by InnoDB, and its, in my opinion, reasonably priced (by this, I mean that if you have the volume to need hot backups absolutely, the 1300USD$ for the perpetual licence won't scare you off).
Also, you should have warned the readers that they may loose functionnality when switching to InnoDB. Count()s will be slower and full-text indexing is not supported in InnoDB. One must make sure this will not affect the design or performance ot the application.
#