next »

[perkiset]

InnoDB, however, cuts into performance pretty hard. The largest reason for InnoDB is if you need transactions. If you are only doing relatively simple DB work, then the default handler is fine. And the table-locking issue only really becomes an issue if you have a high-thrash database where lots of processes are trying to update simultaneously. The lock/release cycle is actually really quick, but it does hold up all other process from writing. Lock/release does not affect reading the table, however, so if you have a high-read/low-write application, the defaults are *very* adequate.

[chide]

That used to be the case.. InnoDB has gotten a LOT better though:
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/01/08/innodb-vs-myisam-vs-falcon-benchmarks-part-1/

Though YMMV, of course.

[Indica]

If you are only doing relatively simple DB work, then the default handler is fine. And the table-locking issue only really becomes an issue if you have a high-thrash database where lots of processes are trying to update simultaneously.

the majority of the queries are just selecting data and updating one field, nothing too complex. just a lot of select/updates.

[chide]

Either way.. give it LOTS of cache.  (but not too much that the OS starts swapping it to disk)