Dries Buytaert wrote:

On 09 Dec 2005, at 18:29, John Handelaar wrote:

...

2. Still no news on either a list of a forum for us. Where are we?

Maybe a 'performance tuning' forum is better than a 'large site' forum? Just a thought.

I really don't mind what you *call* it, Dries :) jh

2005/12/9, Chris Johnson <chris@tinpixel.com>:

John Handelaar wrote:

...

1. I'm testing this tweak to MBR.org at the moment:

ALTER TABLE node SET TYPE = InnoDB; ALTER TABLE comments SET TYPE = InnoDB;

...initial results are extremely impressive.

Any theories as to why this is the case? What prompted making this change?

..chrisxj

http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/mysql/2004-q2/2499.html http://dotnot.org/blog/archives/2005/10/12/mysql-myisam-vs-innodb/ http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?24,36813,36813 "I would as well. Sometimes, however, you will find this situation. The clustered architecture of InnoDB sometimes lends itself nicely to large range and grouped expressions, because MyISAM must do considerable work in bookmark lookups when the temporary set of rows found is large. In that case, having the data in the index record can save quite a bit of processing time." http://www.builderau.com.au/architect/database/soa/A_fast_and_furious_guide_... "Sure, MyISAM is fast, but if your logical design requires transactions, you're free to use one of the transaction-enabled engines. Further, since MySQL allows you to apply database engines on the table level, you can take the performance hit on only the tables that require transactions and leave the nontransactional tables to be managed by the more lightweight MyISAM engine. With MySQL, flexibility is the key. " http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?24,13970,14126#msg-14126 http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?22,13824,13824#msg-13824 -- vi is a real WYSIWYG editor: you see text, you get text.