Quote:
Originally posted by Varius
I'm not familar with the latest version of VB, but since it does use MySQL you might find less problems if you alter the tables (or atleast the huge ones affected by the 5 million+ posts) from INNODB to InnoDB.
InnoDB is better suited to handle millions of rows than INNODB is. From experience, usually after 1-2 million INNODB starts to choke and have corruption problems.
InnoDB seems to be fine for 10-15 million rows atleast.
|
row locking instead of table locking could add some benifits, i agree. As long as the overhead of transactions and foreign keys doesn't out weigh those benifits. With InnoDB you do take a preformance hit, but that hit depending on how your tables are done could be well worth it.
As far as INNODB, and 100 million rows plus (sorry 1-2 million) i haven't had any problems with corruption problems in some time. Only when some jackoff has kill -9 my server or when i had hardware failing on the machine. I don't think we have had a table corruption this year at all, however we used to have them all the time about 2 years ago when what we really needed was more servers to help with the load. Simple lookups are usually best handled with INNODB, something with high inserts and lookups InnoDB could be a much better solution.
If nothing else it's something that could be tried and if it didn't work move it back over. (if down time is an option, there could be a way of doing it w/out any down time) It is worth looking into.
Sorry it's late and i'm kinda rambling.
just have a question, have you ever ran into replication problems with InnoDB that you didn't get with INNODB?