[Tilesathome] INNODB for tiles_meta?

[Andres Kaaber]

On Friday 20 July 2007 10:30:01 Raphaël Jacquot wrote:
> 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.
>

You don't have to pay for 10g XE 
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/xe/index.html


-- 
Andres Kaaber
IT ja sidebüroo juhataja
Ida-Eesti päästekeskus
390 / 5259983