Brian Aker wrote:
Hi!
On Oct 31, 2009, at 11:59 AM, John David Duncan wrote:
but also have a format on-disk that's (a) very space-efficient and
I was thinking about this yesterday, the format of on-disk only applies
to MyISAM. I don't think many people realize how few primitive types
Innodb has (which is fine... I'm not entirely convinced this makes much
of a difference in the 80/20 rule).
InnoDB is not the only engine other than MyISAM, of course :) Paul,
would this apply to PBXT? Toru, could you comment on BlitzDb?
From a replication perspective, the on-disk format makes no difference.
If we adjust a few things we could probably just read data types that
were generated by MySQL, aka... translate in the handler, that we don't
currently support. For us it would just be putting a priority on the
static field array in field.cc (which is really the biggest issue when
it comes to having loadable types right now). Not a hard problem, just
one that will take a bit of time to code.
Brian, could you expand/elaborate on what you mean by "putting a
priority on the static field array in field.cc"? Is this something a
non-Brian-person could pick up? The more details you give, the easier
it is for folks to participate in the conversation...
Cheers!
jay
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
