On 8/7/07, MESHine Team <alerts(a)meshine.info> wrote:
Not considering transactions: What are the main
advantages of InnoDB: Is
it faster, is it more stable, is it space-keeping, is it better for
large files/databases like the Wikipedia dumps ... ??
A lot more stable. Even if you don't use transactions,
partially-completed individual queries (for whatever reason) will be
automatically rolled back rather than leaving the database in an
inconsistent state. This means that table corruption is theoretically
impossible as long as a) there are no bugs in InnoDB and b) there are
no bugs in the OS/hardware (e.g. disk write cache flush returning true
when it actually hasn't been flushed).
This is nice especially for large tables, because on MyISAM you have
to run REPAIR TABLE if/when it gets corrupted. That can take a couple
of hours for a table of just a few million rows, and if the repair
isn't optimal (i.e. it's using keycache and not sorting), it can take
a couple of days. It scales linearly at best with table size even by
sorting, probably linearly-logarithmically (since it is after all a
sort). So I'm guessing days and days for even repair by sorting with
So yeah, I've just learned all that the hard way on the forum I run.
;) Of course, the disadvantage of InnoDB is that it's somewhat slower
if you don't have a lot of locking (in which case it's obviously much
faster due to its more granular locking).