> [JS] I strongly suspect that MySQL, like any other random access, variable
> record length scheme, would find it easier to manage the internal layout of
> separate files. The rows would tend more to be of similar sizes, leading to
> less obnoxious fragmentation, and the files themselves would be
the Americas, Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10013
212-625-5307 (Work)
201-660-3221 (Cell)
AIM & Skype : RolandoLogicWorx
redwa...@logicworks.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Sebastien Moretti [mailto:sebastien.more...@unil.ch]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:38 AM
To: Baron Schwartz; mysql@lists.mysql
>-Original Message-
>From: Sebastien Moretti [mailto:sebastien.more...@unil.ch]
>Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:38 AM
>To: Baron Schwartz; mysql@lists.mysql.com
>Subject: Re: innodb_file_per_table cost
>
>> Hi Sebastian,
>>
>> It depends. In g
Hi Sebastian,
It depends. In general, no. In some filesystems and operating
systems, it actually helps. I think you can base your decision on
whether it makes server administration easier for you.
Regards
Baron
Thanks
It seems there are no clear thresholds between I/O access, the number of
Hi Sebastian,
It depends. In general, no. In some filesystems and operating
systems, it actually helps. I think you can base your decision on
whether it makes server administration easier for you.
Regards
Baron
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Sebastien MORETTI
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does the use
Hi,
Does the use of "innodb_file_per_table" option imply a performance cost ?
Compared to default: all InnoDB indexes are in ibdataX file(s).
Thanks
--
Sébastien Moretti
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mys
