On 04/05/2011 09:57 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Adjusting indexinterval is unlikely to be useful on very narrow rows. >> (Its purpose is to make random access to _large_ rows doable.) > > Whoops, that's column_index_size_in_kb. > > I'd play w/ keycache before index_interval personally. (If you can > get 100% key cache hit rate it doesn't really matter what index > interval is, as long as you can still build the cache effectively.)
I've already tried a key cache equal to and larger (up to what I have heap space for) than my current row cache. But for very narrow rows the row cache is empirically and theoretically better. I realise changing IndexInterval is an unusual proposed configuration, but such is the burden of high cardinality narrow rows.
