kimky...@fhda.edu ("Kyong Kim") writes:
> I don't have all the details of the schema and workload. Just an
> interesting idea that was presented to me.
> I think the idea is to split a lengthy secondary key lookup into 2 primary
> key lookups and reduce the cost of clustering secondary key with primary
> key data by using a shorter INT type surrogate key. Another downside is
> the possible need of foreign keys and added complexity of insertions and
> multi-column updates.
>
> Have you found primary key lookups to be at least twice as fast as
> secondary key lookups with VARCHAR type primary key in InnoDB? The whole
> idea is based on the assumption that it is.
That's why you really need to be more precise in the data structures
you are planning on using. This can change the results significantly.
So no, I don't have any specific answers to your questions as you don't
provide any specific information in what you ask.
> Also, MyISAM conversion is an option too. Have you found the table
> maintenance to be a significant overhead? I've experienced MyISAM table
> corruptions in production and I'm more inclined to go with InnoDB for its
> reliability. This is a fairly important table.
Well disk (and memory) usage can also be important so as it seems
InnoDB storage is "less efficient" this may actually degrade
performance. Until you are more concrete it's hard to say what will
work best for you.
Simon
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
