[Tilesathome] INNODB for tiles_meta?

[Raphaël Jacquot]

Andres Kaaber wrote:
> On Thursday 19 July 2007 21:57:26 Raphaël Jacquot wrote:
>> OJW wrote:
>>> What do people think of the idea of moving tiles_meta to InnoDB format
>>> (is currently MyISAM)
>>>
>>> It currently has 24 million entries, in 3.2 GiB of disk, which (not being
>>> a db expert) I guess will take a while to convert.
>>>
>>> tiles_meta is written-to for each upload (sometimes many times per
>>> upload), and read (a) whenever someone asks for details of who uploaded a
>>> tile and (b) when daily tile list is generated.
>> this table using MyISAM is total nonsense. please convert it ASAP !!
>
> Well I'v been playing around a bit with db -s and I dont think converting it 
> ASAP would be a good idea.
> First of all, what will it give? MyISAM is considered a little bit faster then 
> Innodb. Why mostly Innodb is is selected is because it enables the row level 
> locking while MyISAM cant do that, only table locking.
> One big disadvantage of innodb is the size:
> 
> http://dotnot.org/blog/archives/2005/10/12/mysql-myisam-vs-innodb/

it is well known that MyISAM is fine when only inserting and requesting, 
and performance sucks when modifying data.

> "On the alpha server, using MyISAM, the entire database took about 2.4GB of 
> disk space, including the indices. Once the load was done on the test server, 
> the InnoDB files totaled over 10.6 GB!!! You’ve got that right, the 
> FeedLounge grew to take up almost 5x the space just by changing database 
> storage engines!"
> 
> So if right now the database is somewhere 3.2G then converting it to innodb 
> would make more then 15G. 15G is a lot for making backups or what ever in 
> this amount of data there will come in also the disks IO.

space is not an issue when disks are 100€ for 500GB.

> Well if you asked me ( :) ) then I'd say that maybe it's wise to switch DB 
> from mysql to oracle. If this project becomes really popular then it is quite 
> possible that db size will grow to few hundred G -s and I'm quite sure that 
> MySQL nor postgres or sybase (ok maybe sybase but oracle surely would behave 
> better) cant handle that.

if we are to switch DBs, I'm not sure Oracle is the best contender, 
particularly considering the price of the beast.
Postgres would surely be a much better bet.

> We are using this one Oracle 10g XE
> http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/xe/index.html
> 
> I'v been making php web apps on oracle for my company for a while now and it 
> is great. And it is quite easy to convert your mysql syntax to oracles. 
> 
> Just my 0.2 € cents :)
>