[development] Big site update

[Gildas COTOMALE]

2005/12/9, Chris Johnson <chris at 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_to_MySQL_database_engines/0,39024547,20273508,00.htm
"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.