On Mar 5, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Scott Haneda wrote: > Is innoDB really that binary a decision? Its been a while, but I used to > decide based purely on need of transactions.
It's hard for me to understand why anyone would want a traditional rdbms without transaction support (but I suppose that's why I've never really been a mysql user). > I've got a few large databases, adding a GB a day now, willing to convert > them, but will have to start some pretty serious research. We already have a > hard time keeping up with the data, and are looking towards Amazon and all > the other providers of database in that cloud thing I hear about. Depending on your other requirements, you might want to at least take a look at postgres. It has just about the fastest insert performance of anything you're likely to be looking at (I have an optimized instance for $WORK that peaks at about 30,000 rows inserted per second on fairly regular hardware). -- Daniel J. Luke +========================================================+ | *---------------- [email protected] ----------------* | | *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* | +========================================================+ | Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily | | reflect the opinions of my employer. | +========================================================+ _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
